Loan arrears — repossession of vehicle — lay litigant — amicus — strike out — stay of proceedings — security for costs — paid advisor — Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 ss 93 & 94 — Financial Services Complaints Limited — Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 — District Courts Act 2016, s 107 — District Court Rules 2014, r 10.27 — High Court Rules 2016, r 10.2 — Penrose Earth Works Limited v Robert Cunningham Construction Limited (1993) 7 PRNZ 35 — Fahey v R [2017] NZCA 596. The plaintiff purchased a vehicle granting a security interest to the first defendant. The plaintiff fell into arrears on his loan repayments and was refused a restructured loan. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's step-father submitted a financial hardship application under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Act (CCCF Act) and a complaint to the Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) — the second defendant in the proceeding. While the complaint was still being investigated, the second defendant allowed the first defendant to repossess the vehicle. This permission was not correct in terms of the CCCF Act, leading to the plaintiff's claim of damages and that the FSCL is a "paid advisor" under the CCCF Act. The first defendant applied for a stay of proceedings and security for costs, while the second defendant applied for a strike-out, submitting that no reasonably arguable cause of action exists. The plaintiff's step-father also made an application under s 107(3) of the District Courts Act that he represent the plaintiff, who had a limited power of attorney in place. The step-father subsequently requested the Court appoint an amicus to represent the plaintiff, given his ill health and lack of understanding of legal matters. The Judge considered the case law around s 107 applications and amicus counsel and held that rarely will a lay advocate be permitted to represent a party and, further, that an amicus will only be appointed in exceptional circumstances (especially for a civil proceeding). As the plaintiff had been denied legal aid and it was a civil proceeding, the application for appointment of counsel was dismissed. Judgment Date: 14 February 2019.