DEEP v AUCKLAND GOLD LINE CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2018] NZHC 1189

DEEP v AUCKLAND GOLD LINE CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD [2018] NZHC 1189 [25 May 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2017-404-001516[2018] NZHC 1189BETWEEN RAMAL DEEPFirst PlaintiffSATNAM SINGHSecond PlaintiffSURINDER KUMARThird PlaintiffKAHLON KULVER SINGHFourth PlaintiffVIPAN KUMARFifth Plaintiff ContAND AUCKLAND GOLD LINE CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LIMITEDDefendantHearing: 24 May 2018Appearances: L T Meys for PlaintiffsR White / S S Khan for DefendantJudgment: 25 May 2018JUDGMENT OF LANG J[on application for priority fixture]This judgment was delivered by me on 25 May 2018 at 11 am,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateJASVINDER PAL SINGH GILLSixth PlaintiffAMARJEET SINGHSeventh PlaintiffANIL KUMAREighth PlaintiffVIKAS SAHARANNinth PlaintiffKANWAL JIT SINGHTenth PlaintiffPRADEEP KUMAREleventh PlaintiffMANDIP SINGH GILLTwelfth PlaintiffSIKANDERJEET SINGH BAJWAThirteenth Defendant[1] Neither counsel has filed a memorandum seeking an oral hearing for theplaintiffs' interlocutory application for an urgent priority fixture. As foreshadowed inmy Minute issued earlier today, I now propose to deal with the application on thepapers.[2] The plaintiffs suggest an earlier fixture can be allocated provided there issome adjustment made to the existing timetable. The defendant does not oppose theallocation of an earlier fixture provided the present timetable remains the same.[3] The timetable directed by Fitzgerald J on 18 May 2018 provides for anyoutstanding interlocutory matters to be determined at a hearing on 31 August 2018. Itwould be premature at this stage to proceed on the basis that this fixture will not berequired.[4] The current timetable also provides for the sequential filing of affidavits inanticipation of the current trial date of 4 February 2018. On my interpretation of thetimetable, the plaintiffs' affidavits will be due towards the end of September 2018 solong as any decision from the fixture on 31 August is delivered no later than15 September. The defendants' affidavits will then be due towards the end of October2018. The plaintiffs have a further week within which to file affidavits strictly inreply. The proceeding will therefore not be ready for trial until early to mid-November2018. This provides a window of just four to five weeks within which to allocate anynew trial date before the end of the year.[5] Not surprisingly, the Registry advises there is no time currently available fora trial of three days duration between 1 November and 10 December 2018.1 This isalways a particularly busy period because of urgent matters that must be dealt withbefore the Christmas break. The Court also continues to run criminal jury trials andto conduct its usual complement of civil work during this period. The Court can anddoes, however, accord urgency to proceedings that must be heard before the end of theyear. In the present case that could only be justified if the Court was satisfied the delayuntil the existing trial date of 4 February 2019 is likely to result in an injustice to theplaintiffs.[6] The circumstances on which the plaintiffs rely are set out in Mr Gill'saffidavit sworn on 21 May 2018. His affidavit appears to be premised on the basis1 Court sittings finish for the year on 19 December 2018. The week commencing 17 December isreserved for urgent work such as bail appeals that must be concluded before the Christmasvacation.that the defendants have sought to delay the proceeding coming to trial. Thisoverlooks the fact that it was Fitzgerald J who set the trial date. The Judge set the dateafter making proper allowance for the steps that still need to be completed before theproceeding is ready for trial.[7] The plaintiffs are also obviously concerned about what will occur after thecurrent airport contract comes to an end in June 2019. They believe that the directorsof the defendant are likely to apply for a new contract in the name of a different entity.However, that risk will remain regardless of whether the trial is held in November orDecember 2018 rather than February 2019.[8] The plaintiffs also point to the financial hardship they will suffer by not beingable to work at the airport between now and the date of the trial. I acknowledge thisis a matter of significant concern. Even if the trial was held in the last six weeks ofthis year, however, there is no guarantee a judgment will be available by 31 January2019.[9] I have therefore concluded that the present proceeding does not warrant beingaccorded priority so that it is heard before the end of this year. I have, however, askedthe Schedulers to assign the trial on 4 February 2019 to me. I will then do whatever ittakes to ensure a judgment is delivered within two weeks of the conclusion of the trial.I hope this goes some way towards meeting the concerns of all parties.Result[10] The application for an order granting the proceeding a priority trial isdismissed.[11] The timetable orders made by Fitzgerald J on 18 May 2018 remain in effectpending trial.__________________________________Lang J