KING V PFL FINANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1734

KING V PFL FINANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1734

The application to adjourn was refused because, on balance, the interests of justice required maintaining the allocated fixture: the defendants would suffer unfair prejudice from further delay, the plaintiffs could achieve readiness if LSA made a prompt decision on funding, and LSA processes do not justify vacating the trial date.

Citation
openlaw-16632ac1_1dda_40dd_83cf_e6632b50eb05.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King (TFM and JR King Partnership); Second Plaintiff: Havelock Farms Limited as trustee of the Forebank Farm Trust; First Defendant: PFL Finance Limited; Second Defendant: Craig Beecroft
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Application to Adjourn Trial (fixture Allocated)
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; allocated fixture maintained.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Legal Aid Funding, Trial Fixture Allocation, Costs, Receivership and Liquidation, Delay and Prejudice
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts Commercial Law Adjournment of Trial Legal Aid Funding Trial Fixture Allocation Costs +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King (TFM and JR King Partnership)

First Plaintiff

Havelock Farms Limited as trustee of the Forebank Farm Trust

Second Plaintiff

PFL Finance Limited

First Defendant

Craig Beecroft

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Application to Adjourn Trial (fixture Allocated)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to adjourn a three week trial under r 10.2 High Court Rules in the interests of justice
  2. 2 Effect of delay in legal aid funding on readiness for trial
  3. 3 Prejudice to defendants from further delay and associated costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adjourn was refused because, on balance, the interests of justice required maintaining the allocated fixture: the defendants would suffer unfair prejudice from further delay, the plaintiffs could achieve readiness if LSA made a prompt decision on funding, and LSA processes do not justify vacating the trial date.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; allocated fixture maintained.

Orders

  • Adjournment refused; three week trial fixture to proceed commencing 10 June 2013
  • Copy of judgment to be sent to Legal Services Agency (attention Mr Robin Lees)