PISSMAI JANTAWAT V LINDSAY BERESFORD MILES HC AK CIV 2008-404-8571 [2009] NZHC 1195 (7 September 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
                                                                 CIV 2008-404-8571

              UNDER                      The Property (Relationships) Act 1976

              IN THE MATTER OF           an appeal
from the decision of the North
                                         Shore Family Court given on 21 November
                
                        2008

              BETWEEN                    PISSMAI JANTAWAT
                                        
Appellant

              AND                        LINDSAY BERESFORD MILES
                                         Respondent


Hearing:      7 September 2009 (teleconference)

Counsel:      Appellant in Person assisted by D E Davis
              W W Galvin
for Respondent

Judgment:     7 September 2009


                     JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J
                  (Appeal against
decision of the Family Court)



[1]    This is an appeal against a decision of the Family Court given on
21 November 2008.


[2]
   The appeal is due to be heard on 9 September 2009.         It is not ready to
proceed since none of the necessary steps have been
taken. The respondent has filed
an application that the appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with Court
directions.


[3]    There
are three relevant Minutes: 17 February 2009 (Asher J); 6 May 2009
(Priestly J); 19 August 2009 (Stevens J). At the last hearing
Stevens J amended the
timetable in order to get the matter to hearing on 9 September. He observed:



PISSMAI JANTAWAT V LINDSAY
BERESFORD MILES HC AK CIV 2008-404-8571 7 September 2009

       I make it clear that unless there is full compliance in every respect
with such
       directions, then leave is granted to the respondent to apply to have the appeal
       struck out.

[4]    On 24
August the appellant filed a bundle of documents. They are a loose
unpaginated collection of miscellaneous items. There is a covering
letter called
"new evidence" which seeks to explain what the documents show. There is a second
letter which I am advised is intended
to be Ms Jantawat's submissions. Attached to
this letter is the Minute of Stevens J and a collection of correspondence over legal
aid.


[5]    Consequent on these documents being filed, on 1 September 2009 the
respondent applied for the appeal to be dismissed
for non-compliance with the orders
of Stevens J.


[6]    At the telephone conference I sought an explanation from Ms Jantawat.
Through
Mr Davis the answer is that they had done the best they could, not being
legally trained and had complied as much as they can.


[7]    In my view what has been filed does not come anywhere near sufficient
compliance with the directions of Stevens J. It is never
a particularly satisfactory
outcome that Court proceedings should end this way. However, it is important to
consider the position
of the respondent. The appeal cannot proceed on Wednesday.
After all this time and several sets of directions, the Court is no closer
to be in a
position where it could fairly adjudicate on the matter. There is no obligation on a
private respondent to remedy matters,
and Mr Miles is consistently being put to
expense.


[8]    As I have said, the reality is that the appeal is no closer to being
ready to be
heard than when it was filed. There have now been two wasted Court dates. I am
the fourth High Court Judge who has had
to look at the matter. The integrity of the
system does require some accountability, even where litigants in person are
involved.


[9]    On two bases I therefore dismiss the appeal. First, Stevens J made emphatic
unless orders which have not been complied with.
It is important that, absent a

significant change in circumstances, such directions be enforced. Second, for the
reasons given,
I am independently also of the view the process has dragged on too
long, and to allow continuation would be wholly unfair to the
respondent.


[10]   The appeal is dismissed.           The respondent is entitled to costs.     A
memorandum should be filed; it can be placed in front of the Duty Judge.




      
                                                    ________________________
                                                   
                   Simon France J

Solicitors:
D E Davis, 5/78 King Street, Taradale, Napier 4112
W W Galvin, Galvin Law, PO Box
33 1000, Takapuna, North Shore 0740
email: [e-mail]