JUNG V TEMPLETON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5383 [2009] NZHC 1299 (21 September 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
                                                             CIV 2007-404-5383



               BETWEEN                     DAE BONG JUNG AND YANG HEE
                                           SHIN
       
                                   Plaintiffs

               AND                         WARREN GEORGE CROFT
                  
                        TEMPLETON
                                           Defendant


Hearing:       17 and 21 September 2009

Counsel:       D F Dugdale for Plaintiffs
               M O Robertson and H M Twomey for Defendant

Judgment:      21 September
2009


                       (ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J




Solicitors:
Song Jae Hon, PO Box 33359, Takapuna, Auckland
Shieff Angland,
PO Box 2180, Auckland
Counsel:
D F Dugdale, PO Box 46281, Herne Bay, Auckland


JUNG V TEMPLETON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5383 21 September
2009

[1]      Dr Jung and his wife, Ms Shin, sue their former counsel in negligence. They
allege that Mr Templeton was negligent,
in the conduct (on their behalf) of a
mediation that was held on 19 March 2007. As a result of the negligent advice
alleged, they
contend that they signed an unfavourable settlement agreement
resulting in loss being suffered in the sum of $375,000 plus interest
and costs. The
proceeding has been set down for hearing on 19 October 2009 and is estimated to
take eight days.


[2]      On 23
June 2009, Allan J required a question to be heard and determined
before trial: namely, whether those parties and advisers who were
in attendance at
the mediation can be compelled to attend at Court and give evidence on matters
arising in the course of the mediation,
to provide context for the purpose of
Mr Templeton's defence. I heard argument on this question on 17 September 2009
and today.


[3]      I make the following orders:


         a)     Mr Templeton has leave to issue subpoenas out of the Court to
         
      compel witnesses to attended the mediation to appear in Court for the
                purpose of giving evidence.


      
  b)     If the witnesses co-operate, witness statements should be served in the
                manner contemplated by directions
I will make shortly.          If the
                witnesses do not co-operate, leave is given for their evidence to be
      
         called orally.


[4]      The following timetabling directions are made to adjust those previously in
force.


        
a)     Witness statements shall be served by the plaintiffs on or before 25
                September 2009 together with a list of
documents that the plaintiffs
                wish to have inserted into the agreed bundle.

       b)      Witness statements on
behalf of the defendant shall be served on or
               before 15 October 2009.


       c)      An agreed bundle of documents
shall be filed by 3pm on 16 October
               2009.


[5]    Any further issues that arise should be referred (through Ms Marquet,
at the
Registry) to the trial Judge.


[6]    So far as costs are concerned, they will be reserved for the trial Judge to
determine.
That involves costs incurred on both days of hearing before me.


[7]    Reasons for this judgment will be given in writing as soon
as practicable.


[8]    The conference I had anticipated would be held on 28 September, in the
event of any further issues arising
on an earlier application for adjournment, is
vacated.




                                                   ___________________________
                                                                    P R Heath J