Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Attorney General v Russell Islands Plantation Estates Ltd [2009] SBHC 22; HCSI-CC 423 of 2009 (30 June 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil case No.423 of 2009

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Applicant

AND:

RUSSELL ISLANDS PLANTATION ESTATES LTD
Defendant

Cameron, PJ

Date of Hearing: 25 June 2009
Date of Decision: 25 June 2009
Reasons for Decision: 30 June 2009

Mr. S Woods for Attorney General
Mr. A Nori for Defendant

REASONS FOR DECLINING APPLICATION FOR STAY

Cameron PJ

On 1 May 2009 the Court made various directions, including an order that Russell Islands Plantation Estates Ltd (Ripel) provide disclosure of documents by 15 May 2009 of its relevant records of meetings of the company,

On 25 June 2009, when the matter was next called in the Court list, it was apparent that in breach of that order Ripel had failed to disclose any of those documents. Instead, its lawyer Mr. Nori made an oral application that day for a stay of the order for disclosure until Ripel’s amended application to strike out the applicant’s claim was heard and determined.

I declined the application, and further ordered that disclosure of the documents be made by 10 July 2009, I stated that I would provide brief written reasons, and I now do so.

The central reason advanced by Ripel for requesting the stay was that if its application to strike out the claim was successful, then it would not be necessary for it to disclose the documents, and therefore it ought not be required to provide disclosure at this stage.

However, this argument was not advanced by Ripel’s lawyer at the contested directions hearing on 1 May 2009, despite the fact that at that time Ripel had already filed an application to strike out the Attorney General’s claim, and despite it foreshadowing at that directions hearing the filing of an amended application to strike out. In other words, the situation then was essentially the same as it is now, and there was ample opportunity for this argument to be raised at that time, but it was not. This is also despite the fact that the making of the order for disclosure was the subject of considerable debate at the previous hearing.

I also note that there is a related proceeding before this Court between the same two parties (CC 145 of 2009), in which the same order for disclosure against Ripel for precisely the same documents has been made, and there is no application to strike out the claim in that case. In other words, Ripel is obligated to disclose the documents in that proceeding in any case and within the same time frame, so it can be of no additional burden to it to disclose them in the current proceeding. Also, it is likely that CC 145/2009 will be heard together with the present case.

Finally, although I did not base my decision on it, I note the complete absence of any written application and accompanying sworn statement containing reasons why a stay ought to be granted.

I note that I have already reserved costs on Ripel’s unsuccessful application for a stay.

BY THE COURT