The trial of the Plaintiff�s claims as contained in his
specially Endorsed Writ filed on 29th September, 2000 was fixed
by Directions dated 9th April, 2001. Neither Mr Toa nor the
Plaintiff was in Court on 9th April, 2001. Notice oference
and and Directions hearing on 9th April, 2001 were issued by the Registrar on 19th December, 2000.
p>
On 25th June, 2001 neither Mr Toa nor his
client were again present in Court. Mr Tote on 22nd/sup> June,
2001 informing the Registry and other counsels concerned in this and other
cases that due to commitments in
court la that day, that he would not
be available in Luganvuganville for the hearing of this case. Mr Malcolm replied
Mr Toa�s letter on the same day putting Mr Toa on notice that he would be
coming to Santo on 25th June, 2001 and te would move the
Court to strike out the writ with costs without prejudice to the plae plaintiff�s
right
to re-issue writ if costs were payable within 28 days. Both letters
referreferred to me. After satig myself that that the
Plaintiff had failed
to appear satisfying myself that the plaintiff had failed to appear on 9th
April, 2001, he fato comply with thth the Direction Orders on 9th sup>
April, 2001, and that he failed for the third consecutive time to appear on
25th June, despite clear notice and intention of the Defendant to
proceed in his absence, I ordered that �
1. &nbs; p;&nssp; p; &nbp;
p;
The Piff�tiff�s case be dismissed in its entirety.
1">
2. &nbbsp;& &nsp; &nsp; &nnbp;& &nnbsp;
Coan>Costs be fixed at VT145,125.n>
3. &nbbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& &nbbsp; &nbp;
p;
Thentiff tiff pays such costs within 28 days.
4. ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nbs; &nbbp;&nnbp;&
span>Upon payn payment oent of such costs within the time granted, the plainti
woulresto/span
lass="MsoNormal" style="m-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
>
&nbs> <
On 20th July, 2001 the Plaintiff filed
applicatieking leave to apply out of time. Mr Malcolm does nots not take
issue with that
application. He only opposes the application to set aside
orders.
>
I have heard the submissions made by Mr Toa as to the
reasons for non-availability by himself and his client on 25th
June, 2001. I do not accept themalid rlid reasons for which these orders
can be set aside. In my view the Plaintiff�s
application is frivolous and
vexatious. For those reasons I ss thes the application. I am hr
inclined tend tend the
grace period for payment of the Defendant�s wasted
costs of VT145,125 by a fy a further 28 days from today, and I accoly Or
so.
The following Directions also a�
pan style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> ;&nbssp;&nbs;&nbs; &nbp; ;&nbpp; &n sp;
There bere be discovery within 14 days from the date of this Order.
(2) &&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;
p;
There be inspection within a further 14 days thereafter.
&nbs>
/p>
<
DATED at Luganville this 8th day August, 2001.
BY THE COURT
p class="Mss="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Judge