HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case Number 261 of 2003

WILLIAM ARAHATARA

-v-

SOLOMON AIRLINES LIMITED

Date of Hearing:	17th April 2008
Date of Judgement:	18th April 2008

JAK Legal Services for the Plaintiff.
Sol-Law for the Defendant.

Palmer CJ.

This is an application for costs by the defendant under rule 24.5 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2008 ("the Rules") as read with rule 24.13. 

Mr. Sullivan for the defendant submits that his client is entitled to costs fixed in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Rules. He relies on the general saving provisions, rule 27.6 of the Rules, which he says allows his client to claim for costs as if the case had been commenced under the new rules. Rule 27.6 of the Rules provides that:

"27.6 Subject to these rules:

(a)	….

(b)	subject to sub-paragraph (a), anything done under a provision of the old rules for which there is a corresponding provision in these rules (including anything arising under sub-paragraph (a) ) is taken to have been done under the corresponding provision of these rules, as the case requires."

The bulk of this case was heard before the commencement of the new rules. Judgement however was not delivered until well after commencement of the new rules; commencement date being on 1st March 2008. 

Mr. Sullivan submits in the alternative that if his submission is not accepted then he says that under the old scale for costs as set out in Appendix J at paragraph 43, a judge of the Court may certify for an increase in any of the charges of such amount as he thinks fit having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Mr .Sullivan says that using that provision of the old rules, a similar result would be achieved in terms of the costs that his client seeks.

The third alternative if both submissions are not accepted is for the Court to certify based on the costs set in Ben Maru Junior and Ben Maru Senior v. John Seketala, Alfred Maeke; and Attorney-General; and Registrar of Titles; and Guadalcanal Plains Palm Oil Limited, 27th September 2007, HCSI-CC 179-07 per Brown J.

The general saving provisions of rule 27.6 expressly provide that where there is a corresponding provision under the new rules, anything begun and done under the old rules is deemed to have been done under the corresponding provision of the new rules. 

I am satisfied there are corresponding provisions in the Rules which adequately covers all that had been done under the old rules in this action and to that extent I am equally satisfied rule 27.6 applies on all fours to this case. 

I have perused the costs schedule of the defendant. I am satisfied it complies with the assessment of costs as set out in Schedule 3 of the Rules. I approve costs as set out in the costs schedule of the defendant.

Mr. Sullivan has asked for certification of counsel’s fees and Queen’s Counsel fees in this case under rule 24.30 of the Rules. I am satisfied this case ought not to have proceeded in that there is no good basis for it, for once the issues had been clearly identified it would have become obvious that the calculations were inconsistent with redundancy arrangements that had been instituted. I grant the application for certification for counsel’s fees and Queen’s Counsels fees. 

Orders of the Court:

1.	Approve costs as set out in the costs schedule of the defendant filed 17th April 2008.

2.	Grant award for costs in the sum of $74,700.00 to be payable in 28 days.

The Court.