IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 460 of 2005

BETWEEN:

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
First Claimant

AND:

HWANG SHU FEN
Second Claimant

AND:

KAZUO NAGASAWA
Third Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue)
Defendant

Civil Case No. 101 of 2009

BETWEEN:

KAZUO NAGASAWA
First Claimant

AND:

HWANG SHU FEN
Second Claimant

AND:

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
Third Claimant

AND:

DAIWA MARINE INTERNATIONAL
Fourth Claimant

AND:

SOLCO COMPANY LIMITED
Fifth Claimant

AND:

DAIWA MARINE WORLD
Sixth Claimant

AND:

YUNG HUANG MARINE
Seventh Claimant

AND:

SOLGREEN ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Eighth Claimant

AND:

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY (SI) LIMITED
Ninth Claimant

AND:

SOLCO COMPANY LIMITED (Japan)
Tenth Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Defendant
(Representing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue)

Civil Case No. 505 of 2005

BETWEEN:

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Claimant/Counter
Defendant

AND:

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
Defendant/Counter
Claimant

Date of Hearing:	5th April 2016. 
Date of Ruling: 	13th April 2016.

Mrs. L. Ramo for Claimants in CC: 101/2009; 460/2005 and Defendant in CC: 505/2005.
No appearance of the other parties in all consolidated cases.

KENIAPISIA; PJ: 

RULING ON CHAPTER 15 CONFERENCE

1.	This case was initially filed under the old Civil Procedure Rules – being a 2005 case.  Under the old Rules, claims for judicial review can only be commenced, having obtained leave of the Court. Materials showed that leave was obtained 21/9/2005.  And Notice of Motion filed on the next day, 22/9/2005. And that this case has progressed in Court up until the coming into force of the new Civil Procedure Rules in 2007.  I am therefore satisfied that the filing of this judicial review claim complied with the old Rules.

2.	The case filed under the old Rules is still current, under the new Rules.  The case has been in Court for over 10 years now.

3.	I must still consider the current case under the new Rules.  In doing so, a Chapter 15 conference was conducted on 6/4/2016.  I consider the case against the four tests that this judicial review claim must pass under R. 15.3.18 in order to progress to trial.

4.	I can say that I am satisfied this case should pass the four tests mentioned in the Rule above.

5.	Firstly, that there is an arguable case – in that the Claimant is saying that the actions of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was outside of the powers it has under Statute when the CIR distrain the claimant’s properties.  This allegation alone raised some questions fit to be tried.  Hence an arguable case. At this stage the court is not concerned with whether the claim is weak or strong. 

6.	Second, the claimants are directly affected by this proceeding – materials showed that the claimants are the owners of the properties that were distrain by the CIR, at the material time in 2005.

7.	Third is delay – there is no delay because materials showed that the act complained of was committed on 25/8/2005.  Proceedings under the old Rules commenced on 21/9/2005, only a month later. Under the new Rules, six months would be the time frame to measure delay against.

8.	Lastly, I think there is no other remedy to resolve this matter.  If there was – then 10 years was long time enough to have resolved this matter outside of Court.

9.	I am therefore satisfied that this case meets the requirements of the new Rules.  And that the matter should proceed to trial.  Order accordingly.

THE COURT

JOHN A. KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE