HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Solomon Construction Ltd v Maerodo	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	26 November 2020	
		
Parties: 	Solomon Construction Limited v Joe Maerodo, Bora Richard Loea	
		
Date of hearing: 	17 November 2020	
		
Court file number(s): 	301 of 2018	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Kouhota; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Defendant defence hence it is not necessary to give Further and Better Particulars. On that basis, the application must be refused and dismissed. The Cross Claimant to pay the Second Cross Defendant cost in this application. Cost to be taxed if not agreed.	
		
Representation: 	For the First Cross Claimant Marahare. D
For the Second Cross Claimant Laurere. N 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Civil Procedure Rule, Rule 23.4, Rule 5.2 a. r. w rule 5.3	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 301 of 2018

BETWEEN

SOLOMON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
Claimant/Applicant

AND:

JOE MAERODO
First Defendant

AND:

BORA RICHARD LOEA
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 17 November 2020
Date of Ruling: 26 November 2020

For the Cross Claimant: Marahare D
For the Second Cross Claimant: Laurere N

JUDGMENT
Kouhota PJ
This is an application pursuant to rule 23.4 of the CPR by the Cross Claimant seeking to strike out the pleading of the Second Cross Defendant for failing to provide Further and Better Particulars as requested by the Cross Claimant. In support of the application, the applicant relied on the sworn statement of Richard Loea Bara, the Cross Claimant, filed on 16th September 2020. The sworn statement confirmed that a request for Further and Better Particulars was made on 24th March 2020.
The 2nd Cross Defendant admitted that the Cross Claimant did make a request and that he did not respond or provide Further and Better Particulars. Second Cross Defendant, however, says the purpose of pleadings is set out in rule 5.2 a. r. w rule 5.3 and says the Cross Claimant clearly was not seeking Further and Better Particulars but evidence.
The Second Cross Defendant states that what the Cross Claimant was asking for were not relevant to the issue at hand and undermined the liberty of the Second Cross Defendant to negotiate and contract with a Third Party and the Cross Claimant has no Locus Standi to challenge this. The Second Cross Defendant says in paragraph 1(c) has been answered in paragraphs 4, 8 to 31 of his defence and that in paragraph 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 and 14, the Cross Claimant was requesting evidence which is not in accordance with rule 5.3 (b). Counsel for the Second Cross Defendant submitted that the Cross Second Defendant had properly pleaded its case in his defence and the particulars as far as relevant is clear on the face of the pleadings and that evidence are matters for trial.
I had considered the application and the sworn statement of Mr Loea in support of the application. I had also considered the submissions of counsels. On the materials before the court, I noted that there was a Direction Order but it was not an unless order. I found that there are merits in Mr Laurere’s submission and that there are good reasons why the Second Cross Defendant refused to provide Further and Better Particulars. I had the opportunity to read the Second Cross Defendant’s defence and I must agree with Mr Laurere’s submission that the relevant particulars are clear in the Second Cross Defendant defence hence it is not necessary to give Further and Better Particulars. On that basis, the application must be refused and dismissed. The Cross Claimant to pay the Second Cross Defendant cost in this application. Cost to be taxed if not agreed.
The Court
Justice Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge