FISTONICH v PLUMBING WORLD LTD [2021] NZHC 600

FISTONICH v PLUMBING WORLD LTD [2021] NZHC 600 [23 March 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-2309[2021] NZHC 600UNDER the District Courts Act 2016IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a decision of the DistrictCourtBETWEEN IAN FISTONICHAppellantAND PLUMBING WORLD LIMITEDRespondentHearing: 23 March 2021Appearances: Appellant in personJudgment: 23 March 2021JUDGMENT OF PETERS JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 23 March 2021 at 3.30 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: ...................................Copy for: AppellantCraig Griffin Lord, AucklandIntroduction[1] The appellant, Mr Fistonich, appeals against a decision of the District Court atAuckland declining to transfer a proceeding to the Disputes Tribunal on 25 November2020.1[2] Plumbing World did not appear at the hearing of the appeal and abides thedecision of the Court.Background[3] The respondent, Plumbing World Ltd ("Plumbing World"), has commencedproceedings against Mr Fistonich in the District Court at Auckland. On theinformation before me, Plumbing World seeks judgment against Mr Fistonich for$7,724.16, being a sum said to be owed by Accent on Plumbing Ltd ("AOP"), and thepayment of which Mr Fistonich is said to have guaranteed. Mr Fistonich is or was adirector of AOP. I do not have a copy of the statement of claim but I expect PlumbingWorld are also seeking an award of interest and costs.[4] By application to the District Court dated 27 August 2020, Mr Fistonich soughtan order transferring the proceedings to the Disputes Tribunal, the sum claimed beingwithin the Tribunal's jurisdiction. On or about 9 October 2020, a Registrar of theDistrict Court declined Mr Fistonich's application for transfer.[5] On 20 October 2020, Mr Fistonich applied to the District Court seeking reviewof the Registrar's decision. Judge G Harrison declined the application on25 November 2020. The reasons given were as follows:... The matter is ready for hearing in this Court and it should be progressed asquickly as possible ...[6] It is this decision which Mr Fistonich appeals to this Court.1 Plumbing World Ltd v Fistonich DC Auckland CIV-2020-404-2309, 25 November 2020 (Minuteof Judge Harrison).[7] Mr Fistonich submits the decision was wrong and that the proceedings shouldbe transferred to the Disputes Tribunal. This is because, as I have said, the sumclaimed is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and Mr Fistonich is self-represented andthe relative informality of the Tribunal will make it easier for him to advance his case.Mr Fistonich also contends the reasons the Judge gave for the refusal were inadequate.Discussion[8] Mr Fistonich advised me he disputes his obligation to pay the sum claimed.He advised that Plumbing World is seeking recovery of sums in respect of goodsinvoiced on two different accounts. Mr Fistonich accepts that the sum owed on oneof those accounts, less than $2,000, is in respect of goods supplied to AOP but hedisputes liability and proposes to file a counterclaim against Plumbing World.[9] Mr Fistonich also advised me this morning that the balance of the sum claimedis owed on an account entitled "HNZ Accent on Plumbing Ltd". Mr Fistonichcontends he did not guarantee the payment of sums due on that account. AlthoughMr Fistonich confirmed AOP had done work for Housing New Zealand, he advised heis unable to ascertain whether the goods listed as supplied on that account were in factsupplied to AOP because only a PO Box, not a physical address, is recorded on theinvoices.Decision[10] This background information confirms to me that the earlier decisions to retainthe proceedings in the District Court were correct. As I explained to Mr Fistonich, theDistrict Court Rules include procedures for the filing and service of a counterclaim,for discovery of documents, and for the giving of evidence on oath. The Court alsohas jurisdiction to award interest, costs and disbursements, and its Rules provide forthe enforcement of any judgment that might be obtained. Moreover, Mr Fistonich hasdone a good job so far of representing his interests and, in my view, should not beoverly concerned that he will be disadvantaged. Courts of all jurisdictions regularlyhave self-represented litigants appearing before them.Result[11] I dismiss this appeal accordingly.[12] There having been no appearance for Plumbing World, no issue as to costsarises.Peters J