Mr. H.M. Patel for the Third Parties
Second Defendant in Person
Dates of Hearing: 29th January and 18th February 1991
Date of Ruling: 17th March 1992
RULING
The Writ herein was issued on the 22nd of May 1986. In it the Plaintiff claims:
(a) the sum of $9,125.08;
(b) interest at 13.5% from 7/5/86 until judgment;
(c) costs.
The amount claimed by the Plaintiff is said to be due from the Defendants as the balance under a Bill of Sale executed by the Defendants
on 3rd of August 1983. The Statement of Claim also alleges that a Receiving Order has been made against the Second-named Defendant
by this Court at its Lautoka Registry in 1985. This is admitted by the Second Defendant. Since the date the proceedings commenced,
as is not unusual in any action involving the Second Defendant, the proceedings have taken an involved course of applications and
counter-applications made in most cases by the Defendants. Presently before the Court is a Summons issued on the 14th of August 1986
on behalf of the Third Parties seeking an order setting aside the Third Party Notice issued on behalf of the Defendants and a Summons
to strike out the Summons of the Third Parties issued by the Defendants on the 7th of January 1991. The ground on which the Defendants
seek such order is that the Third Parties have failed to prosecute their application with due diligence. The numerous pleadings and
affidavits and submissions filed on behalf of the Defendants by the Second-named Defendant are typical of such pleadings filed by
him in other actions before this Court and consist of a curious mixture of pseudo-legalese, frequently incomprehensible English and
equally frequently incomprehensible submissions on the law and irrelevant citations of cases.
I venture to suggest that the time is now more than ripe for serious consideration to be given to having the Second Defendant declared
a vexatious litigant.
Towards the end of the written submission filed on behalf of the Third Parties on the Defendants' present Summons the Solicitor for
the Third Parties refers to Order 15/8 of the Rules of this Court, the equivalent of which is to be found in Order 15/7 of the Rules
of the English Supreme Court. Under this Rule if a Bankruptcy Order has been made against the debtor no action may be commenced against him in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court having bankruptcy jurisdiction over the
debtor - Bankruptcy Act Cap 48 Section 9. Any such action commenced without such leave will be stayed. (Brownscombe v Fair (1887) 58 L.T.85; Blount v Whitely (1898) 79 L.T. 635.)
A reading of the papers in this action satisfies me that the leave of this Court for the institution of this action has never been
obtained. I therefore order that all proceedings in the action now be stayed until further order and I direct that a copy of this
Order be served on the Solicitors for the Plaintiff.
John E. Byrne
JUDGE
Hbc0510d.86s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1992/3.html
