Skelton v Z487 Limited

[2015] NZHC 1450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-419-77 [2015] NZHC 1450

BETWEEN

DONALD ALFRED SKELTON

Plaintiff

AND

Z487 LIMITED First Defendant

JOHN DAVID BLACKLER Second Defendant

Hearing:	25 June 2015 (by telephone)
Appearances:	F Cuncannon and R Thompson for plaintiff C M Tan and B McKinnon for first defendant
Judgment:	25 June 2015
Reasons:	25 June 2015

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 June 2015 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

SKELTON v Z487 LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1450 [26 June 2015]

[1]      I convened a telephone conference today to deal with the application by the plaintiff for an adjournment of the trial currently scheduled to commence in the High Court  at  Hamilton  on  3 August  2015.    At  the  conclusion  of  the  conference  I dismissed the application, and I now give brief reasons for that decision.

[2]      This proceeding was due to be the subject of a trial commencing on 30 March

2015.  On the first day of the trial, the plaintiff sought to amend his pleading.  This led  to  the  trial  being  adjourned.    The  fixture  in  August  was  allocated  at  the conclusion of that hearing.

[3]      Since that date, I have dealt with applications by the plaintiff for further discovery, and I delivered a ruling as a matter of urgency on those issues given their imminence to the trial.1

[4]      The present application has been made because Mr Skelton has recently changed solicitors and counsel.   This has led to practical difficulties, because Mr Skelton’s  new  solicitors  have  been  unable  to  obtain  his  file  from  his  former solicitors.   More significantly, however, they take the view that there are serious defects in trial preparation that are likely to significantly prejudice Mr Skelton if the trial proceeds in August.  They submit that the interests of justice require the trial to be adjourned so that Mr Skelton has an opportunity to place his house in order.

[5]      The first defendant opposes the application on the basis that Mr Skelton is the author of his own misfortune, and that their client should not be prejudiced by further delay in this matter.   They have offered Mr Skelton’s solicitors practical assistance in the form of providing them with copies of all relevant documents in their possession.

[6]      On the basis of the material presently available, I take the view that every effort should be made to ensure that the August fixture proceeds.  The trial is still six

1      Skelton v Z487 [2015] NZHC 1338.

weeks away, and this gives Mr Skelton’s solicitors a window of opportunity within which to rectify their client’s position should they consider that to be necessary.  If the fixture is vacated at this point, it is highly unlikely that a trial will be able to be scheduled before 2016. That would be very unfortunate for all concerned.

[7]      I therefore dismissed the application.  Should Mr Skelton’s solicitors consider

that their client’s position is irretrievable, they have leave to file a further application for an adjournment supported by affidavit evidence.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Buddle Findlay, Auckland

Holland Beckett, Tauranga