Thomson v Lloyd

[2023] NZHC 1548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-994

[2023] NZHC 1548

BETWEEN

GRAEME DOUGLAS THOMSON

Appellant

AND

ARTESHAR MAI-RAH LLOYD

Respondent

Hearing:

20 June 2023

Appearances:

G J Jones for the Appellant

L T Meys for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2023 at 3.30 pm pursuant to

R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Gregory John Jones Barrister, Auckland Neilsons Lawyers, Auckland

Counsel: L T Meys G J Jones

GRAEME DOUGLAS THOMSON v ARTESHAR MAI-RAH LLOYD [2023] NZHC 1548 [22 June 2023]

[1]                  The appellant, Graeme Thomson, has appealed two interlocutory decisions of the District Court. The first, a minute issued by Judge M-E Sharp, set the District Court proceedings between the parties down for a substantive hearing. That hearing was subsequently set down to commence on 4 July 2023. The second decision under appeal, that being a minute of Judge D J Clark confirmed that the fixture would proceed as notified when Mr Thomson sought an adjournment. In addition to filing the appeals Mr Thomson has also sought a stay of the District Court fixture pending the High Court dealing substantively with his appeals.

[2]                  There does not appear to be any dispute that the District Court proceedings have had a protracted history and Judge Sharp’s minute was issued following an unsuccessful settlement conference earlier this year. It is noted that although Judge Sharp issued her minute orally on 23 February 2023 the typed minute was not made available until 21 April 2023. In the interim, the 4 July hearing date had been allocated by the Registry and by the time the written version of the minute was issued the close of pleadings date had already passed. This caused considerable problems to Mr Jones who had not been present at the conference on 23 February 2023 due to other hearing commitments.

[3]                  In anticipation of the first call of the proceedings this morning Mr Jones had conferred with counsel for Ms Lloyd and counsel reached agreement on how the matters at issue can be resolved by consent orders.   This was significant because   Mr Meys had opposed further delays when the matter was before Judge Sharp. Given the circumstances outlined above and the short time remaining before the scheduled trial in the District Court, as well as the likelihood of considerably more disruption and need for judicial resources in the event that the stay application was to be heard as a matter of urgency followed by the substantive appeal, I am satisfied it is appropriate to make the following orders by consent:

(a)The appeals are allowed.

(b)The District Court trial scheduled for 4 July 2023 is to be vacated.

(c)A two day trial is to be scheduled for the next available date after     31 October 2023

(d)The close of pleadings date is to be 60 days prior to trial.

(e)Costs in the High Court are to lie where they fall.

(f)Costs on any subsequent appearance in the District Court necessary to give effect to this judgment are to be reserved.

(g)Leave is reserved for either party to apply for such orders as may be necessary to give effect to these consent orders, including a stay of the 4 July fixture.

Powell J