Miah v The Park Homes Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA323/2022
[2023] NZCA 47

BETWEEN	ABDUR RAHIM MIAH Appellant
AND	THE PARK HOMES LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	No appearance for Appellant R J Thompson for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	8 March 2023 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is struck out.
BThe appellant must pay costs to the respondent for a standard appeal on a band A basis.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Mr Miah appeals to this Court from a decision of the High Court entering summary judgment against him for breach of a GST warranty in an agreement for sale and purchase.[1] The appeal has been set down for a half-day hearing before a Divisional Court on Wednesday 22 March 2023.
[1]The Park Homes Limited v Miah [2022] NZHC 1352.
In December 2022 Mr Miah’s lawyer filed a memorandum seeking leave to withdraw, as he had been unable to obtain instructions from Mr Miah. The lawyer understood that Mr Miah was in Bangladesh. He had made efforts to contact Mr Miah, including through Mr Miah’s son in Australia, but those efforts had been unsuccessful.
A telephone conference was convened on 8 February 2023 to consider the lawyer’s application. Mr Miah’s lawyer was directed to take steps to advise Mr Miah of the telephone conference, and invite him to participate in it. However Mr Miah did not respond to any communications about the telephone conference, and did not participate in it.
By minute dated 8 February 2023 leave was granted to the lawyer to withdraw as counsel. Leave was also granted to his firm to withdraw as solicitors on the record, conditional on an alternative address for service for Mr Miah in New Zealand being provided to the Court. No such address has been provided to date.
Mr Miah’s submissions for the substantive appeal were due to be filed on Wednesday 15 February 2023. The minute of 8 February 2023 gave notice to Mr Miah that if his submissions were not filed in accordance with the timetable, this Court would consider making an order under r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 striking out his appeal for non-compliance with the timetable and failure to prosecute the appeal diligently.
Mr Miah has not filed submissions as required by the timetable. He has not contacted the Court or taken any other steps to progress his appeal. He has not sought an adjournment of the fixture.
In these circumstances it is not appropriate for the respondent to be required to prepare submissions on the merits of the appeal. Nor is it appropriate for the Court to continue to set time aside to hear the appeal, if it is not being diligently pursued. The Court’s hearing time is under considerable pressure: the time allocated for hearing this appeal should be made available for other matters. An adjournment is not appropriate in circumstances where none has been sought, and no good reason has been identified for adjourning the fixture while keeping the appeal on foot.
The appeal is struck out under r 44A of the Rules on the grounds that Mr Miah has not complied with the Court’s timetable order, and has failed to prosecute his appeal diligently.
The respondent is entitled to costs for steps taken to date for a standard appeal on a band A basis.

Result

The appeal is struck out.
The appellant must pay costs to the respondent for a standard appeal on a band A basis.

Solicitors:
Vallant Hooker & Partners, Auckland for Appellant
Forest Harrison Lawyers, Auckland for Respondent

In Miah v The Park Homes Limited, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed an appeal by Mr Miah against a summary judgment entered by the High Court. The judgment found Mr Miah in breach of a GST warranty in a sale and purchase agreement. The appeal was set down for a half-day hearing, but Mr Miah did not participate in the scheduled telephone conference nor did he respond to communications from his lawyer, who had been unable to obtain instructions from him. Mr Miah's lawyer applied to withdraw from the case due to these issues, and the Court granted the application, along with an order for Mr Miah's firm to withdraw as solicitors. Despite notice of the consequences of non-compliance with the Court's timetable, Mr Miah did not file submissions for the appeal nor seek an adjournment of the fixture.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Miah's failure to participate in his appeal and comply with the Court's timetable justified striking out his appeal under rule 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Court found that Mr Miah's lack of engagement with the appeal process and the resulting pressure on the Court's resources warranted the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the Court noted that the respondent was entitled to costs for the steps taken to date in the appeal, assessed on a band A basis for a standard appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined that striking out the appeal was the appropriate outcome given Mr Miah's lack of diligence in prosecuting his appeal. The Court emphasised the importance of adherence to the timetable and the necessity of making efficient use of Court resources. The decision reflects the Court's authority to manage its caseload and ensure that appeals are pursued diligently by the parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and Mr Miah was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established