Florov v Auckland Transport (Formerly Auckland City Council) HC Auckland Cri-2008-404-335

[2011] NZHC 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2008-404-335

CRI-2008-404-336
CRI-2008-404-337

CRI-2008-404-338

BETWEEN  PLAMEN BORISSOV FLOROV Appellant

ANDAUCKLAND TRANSPORT (FORMERLY AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL) Respondent

Hearing:         4 July 2011

Counsel:         No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant

H Hargraves for Respondent

Judgment:      4 July 2011

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

SOLICITORS

Auckland Council, Legal Services, Private Bag 92300, Auckland

FLOROV V AUCKLAND TRANSPORT (FORMERLY AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL) HC AK CRI-2008-

404-335 4 July 2011

(copy to Appellant in person)

[1]      Mr Florov appeals against findings by Justices of the Peace as to his liability to pay for infringement notices relating to parking offences.

[2]      The matter was first called before Duffy J on 18 April 2011.  Mr Florov failed to appear.  Duffy J noted as follows:

[2]       Mr Florov is someone who has appeared in this Court in the past in circumstances where he has appealed decisions of the District Court convicting him of parking offences.  He usually approaches his appeals with enthusiasm, and I would not expect him to fail to appear in Court for no good reason.  No communication has been given to the Court to explain why Mr Florov is not present today.

[3]      On the basis of Mr Florov’s previous history of enthusiastic appearances, Duffy J  did  not  dismiss  the  appeal  for  want  of  prosecution  but  adjourned  it. Mr Florov has failed to appear before me today.

[4]      I have read the file.  There is no merit to any of the appeal grounds.  The infringement  offences  are  parking  offences.    They  are  strict  liability  offences. Mr Florov’s grounds of appeal are all along the lines of giving reasons why he should not have been prosecuted.  They could not possibly succeed.  Accordingly, I dismiss the appeals.

[5]      In reading the file, I have noted that there is an error on the record.  In the oral judgment of the Justices of the Peace, they dismiss one of the infringement offences,  CRN  08004342356.     However,  on  the  actual  infringement  offence document they recorded a finding of liability and noted an order to pay $60.  It is clear  that  that  finding  and  that  order  to  pay  should  have  related  to  CRN

08004342357.   On that infringement offence document the Justices of the Peace recorded “case dismissed”.  I direct that the record be corrected so that the findings in relation to CRN 08004342357 and CRN 08004342356 be swapped.

Brewer J