VICTORIA KEY LIMITED V BASTIN AND ANOR HC TAU CIV-2009-470-79 [2009] NZHC 1230 (10 September 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
TAURANGA REGISTRY
                                                                   CIV-2009-470-79



              BETWEEN                    VICTORIA KEY LIMITED
                                         Plaintiff

           
  AND                        BARRY JOHN BASTIN
                                         First Defendant

              AND      
                 BARRY JOHN BASTIN AND CLINTON
                                         MAURICE BASTIN
                         
               Second Defendant


Hearing:      10 September 2009

Appearances: Mr King for Plaintiff
             Mr Bastin in person

Judgment:     10 September 2009


            ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE
                      [Adjournment application]




Sharp Tudhope, Private Bag 12020, TAURANGA
Mr Bastin, 13 Pine Avenue, Tauranga



VICTORIA KEY LIMITED V BASTIN AND ANOR HC TAU
CIV-2009-470-79 10 September 2009

[1]    This matter has been called before me today 10 September 2009 and again
Mr Bastin has
applied for an adjournment of the proceedings on the grounds that he
has not managed to arrange counsel. That application is resisted
and I must now
decide whether the proceeding should go ahead today or not. When this matter was
initially adjourned by me in July,
I recorded that the Court would be reluctant to
proceed with the matter if counsel did not have a lawyer representing him. That was
the position at least from 9 July when Mr Patterson signalled his non-availability. I
adjourned the matter effectively for two months.
I said at paragraph 7 of my minute:

       [7]    Mr Bastin needs to understand though that he has very much
              received
an indulgence from the Court today. It is most unlikely that
              there will be any further delays in bringing this matter
to trial. He
              needs to act promptly to either obtain funding to pay a lawyer of his
              own or make an application
immediately to the legal services
              agency. Further delays based upon the fact that he has not engaged
             
counsel will not be entertained. The proceeding at this point is
              adjourned to a fresh fixture which will take place
on 10 September
              at 2.15 p.m.

[2]    Mr Bastin says that there had been a number of problems with getting legal
aid.
He initially instructed a lawyer who was not apparently authorised to take legal
aid assignments. He then saw other counsel on 3
September but that counsel was
unable to take the brief because of the shortage of time. All this needs to be kept in
perspective
though. These proceedings were served on Mr Bastin on 2 March 2009 -
that is some six months ago. The standard notice to defendant
that a company's
summary judgment application warns the defendant that he/she is recommended to
instruct a solicitor. As I say we
have now reached the point six months on where Mr
Bastin has still not managed to do that. He should have had a solicitor available
to
represent him at the July hearing two months ago. I showed him considerable
leniency in not insisting that the matter proceed
that day. I warned him that there
would be no further leniency if he was to apply for a further adjournment. He has
now done so and
my response while no doubt un-pleasing to him cannot be
unexpected. The matter is to proceed today.



_____________
J.P. Doogue
Associate Judge