Fistonich v Plumbing World Limited

[2021] NZHC 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-2309

[2021] NZHC 600

UNDER

the District Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the District Court

BETWEEN

IAN FISTONICH

Appellant

AND

PLUMBING WORLD LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:	23 March 2021
Appearances:	Appellant in person
Judgment:	23 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 23 March 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Copy for:           Appellant

Craig Griffin Lord, Auckland

FISTONICH v PLUMBING WORLD LTD [2021] NZHC 600 [23 March 2021]

Introduction

[1]                 The appellant, Mr Fistonich, appeals against a decision of the District Court at Auckland declining to transfer a proceeding to the Disputes Tribunal on 25 November 2020.1

[2]                 Plumbing World did not appear at the hearing of the appeal and abides the decision of the Court.

Background

[3]                 The respondent, Plumbing World Ltd (“Plumbing World”), has commenced proceedings against Mr Fistonich in the District Court at Auckland. On the information before me, Plumbing World seeks judgment against Mr Fistonich for

$7,724.16, being a sum said to be owed by Accent on Plumbing Ltd (“AOP”), and the payment of which Mr Fistonich is said to have guaranteed. Mr Fistonich is or was a director of AOP. I do not have a copy of the statement of claim but I expect Plumbing World are also seeking an award of interest and costs.

[4]                 By application to the District Court dated 27 August 2020, Mr Fistonich sought an order transferring the proceedings to the Disputes Tribunal, the sum claimed being within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. On or about 9 October 2020, a Registrar of the District Court declined Mr Fistonich’s application for transfer.

[5]                 On 20 October 2020, Mr Fistonich applied to the District Court seeking review of  the  Registrar’s  decision.    Judge  G  Harrison   declined  the  application  on    25 November 2020. The reasons given were as follows:

... The matter is ready for hearing in this Court and it should be progressed as quickly as possible ...

[6]It is this decision which Mr Fistonich appeals to this Court.

1      Plumbing World Ltd v Fistonich DC Auckland CIV-2020-404-2309, 25 November 2020 (Minute of Judge Harrison).

[7]                 Mr Fistonich submits the decision was wrong and that the proceedings should be transferred to the Disputes Tribunal. This is because, as I have said, the sum claimed is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and Mr Fistonich is self-represented and the relative informality of the Tribunal will make it easier for him to advance his case. Mr Fistonich also contends the reasons the Judge gave for the refusal were inadequate.

Discussion

[8]                 Mr Fistonich advised me he disputes his obligation to pay the sum claimed. He advised that Plumbing World is seeking recovery of sums in respect of goods invoiced on two different accounts. Mr Fistonich accepts that the sum owed on one of those accounts, less than $2,000, is in respect of goods supplied to AOP but he disputes liability and proposes to file a counterclaim against Plumbing World.

[9]                 Mr Fistonich also advised me this morning that the balance of the sum claimed is owed on an account entitled “HNZ Accent on Plumbing Ltd”. Mr Fistonich contends he did not guarantee the payment of sums due on that account. Although Mr Fistonich confirmed AOP had done work for Housing New Zealand, he advised he is unable to ascertain whether the goods listed as supplied on that account were in fact supplied to AOP because only a PO Box, not a physical address, is recorded on the invoices.

Decision

[10]            This background information confirms to me that the earlier decisions to retain the proceedings in the District Court were correct. As I explained to Mr Fistonich, the District Court Rules include procedures for the filing and service of a counterclaim, for discovery of documents, and for the giving of evidence on oath. The Court also has jurisdiction to award interest, costs and disbursements, and its Rules provide for the enforcement of any judgment that might be obtained. Moreover, Mr Fistonich has done a good job so far of representing his interests and, in my view, should not be overly concerned that he will be disadvantaged. Courts of all jurisdictions regularly have self-represented litigants appearing before them.

Result

[11]I dismiss this appeal accordingly.

[12]            There having been no appearance for Plumbing World, no issue as to costs arises.

Peters J