PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 1998 >> [1998] SBHC 16

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Reef Pacific Trading Ltd v Price Waterhouse [1998] SBHC 16; HC-CC 164 of 1994 (2 March 1998)

lass="MsoNormal"rmal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> HIGH COF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 164 of 1994

REEF PACIFIC TRADING (THE COMPANY)

& JOAN MARIE MEINERS

v

PRICE WATERHOUSE (THE FI/span>

RICHARD ANTHONY BARBER (PARTNER) &

WILLIAM DOUGLAS McKLUSKEY(PARTNER)

ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .2pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> High Court of Solomon Islands

Civil Case No. 164 of 1994

Before: C.J. John Muria

HearingFebruary 1998

Judgment: 2 March 1998

Ms J. Meinerperson

Steve Patrick for the Defendants

> Interlocutory Judgment

MURIA CJ: This is an application by the plaintiffs asking the Court to assign this matter to be dealt with by an independent trial judge. The plaintiff brought this application following the recusal of Mr. Justice Lungole-Awich from hearing this case.

Under the order of recusal, it was directed that the matter be placed before the Hon. Chief Justice so as to have the matter reassigned to another judge. The case has been placed before me and while I am in the process of giving directions to the Registrar of High Court as to the listing of the matter, this application had been filed by the plaintiffs.

I think this is an unnecessar application as I had indicated at the hearing of this apis application. As a general rule in this Court where for any reason a judge is unable to hear or deal with the matter listed before him, the Chief Justice may either by order or direction direct the matter to be tried by another judge. An application such as the one now brought by the plaintiffs, not only that it is unnecessary in the circumstances of this case, but takes up the Court's time and causes unnecessary expenses upon the parties. This, I think is the case here.

I give the tiffs the benefit of not being legally represented aned and so thought best to bring this application as a consequence of the recusal of the judge dealing with their case. On that basis I am prepared to treat the application as an application for further direction as consequence of the order of recusal.

I thee direct that the Registrar of High Court list this case before another judge at a da a date to be fixed. It is unnecessary to make the other orders sought in the Summons and I decline to make them. However, the costs of bringing this applications must be paid by the plaintiffs.

Orders:

class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: .2pt; margin-top: 1op: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

1. &nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; The Regr traHigh Couh Court to list this case before another judge at a date to be fixed.

2.  p; & bsp; other orders sors sought in the sthe summons are refused.

&nt"> /p>

3. &nbbsp;&&bsp;;&bspp; bs Costs occasioned by this application to be paid by the plaintiffs.

lass="Mso="MsoNormal" alignter" style="text-align: cen: center; margin-right: .2pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> (GJB Muria)

CHIEF JUSTICE


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1998/16.html