Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

  Download original PDF

Iauko v Vanuaroroa [2007] VUSC 70; Civil Case 98 of 2007 (3 August 2007)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 98 of 2007

BETWEEN:

HARRY IAUKO & ORS
Claimants

AND:

HAM LINI VANUAROROA
RIALUTH SERGE VOHOR
WILLIE JIMMY TAPANGARARUA
First Defendants

AND:

AIR VANUATU OPERATIONS LIMITED (AVOL)
Second Defendants

Coram: Tuohy J

Counsel: No appearance for Claimant
Ms. Harders for 1st Defendants
No appearance for 2nd Defendant

Date of Hearing: 3 August 2007
Date of Decision: 3 August 2007

RULING

1. In my ruling dated 2 July, I stated:
   

"there will be an order for costs in favour of the first defendants in a sum to be agreed or fixed by the Court on application made before the first case management conference for the substantive proceeding which is fixed for Friday 3rd August 2007 at 8am".

Today 3rd August Ms. Harders has appeared for the first defendants to support her application for costs filed on 31st July 2007. In support a sworn statement was filed on 2nd August. No other party has appeared. Ms. Harders advised the Court that she had sent a copy of a draft bill of costs to the claimants solicitors and attempted to negotiate an agreement but without response. She did however advise the Court that the application for costs itself had not been served. I consider that in the circumstances the claimants have had adequate notice that the application for costs will be decided today. I have therefore considered the bill of costs filed.

2. Rule 15.8 sets out the matters which the judges should take into account in relation to costs. The areas where I have not accepted the costs charged relate to items 1, 2, 3, 10, 11 and 20 of the bill of costs. All of these relate to preparation in one form or another. Although I accept that the time recorded has been spent, under Rule 15.8 (1) the Court has to consider whether it was reasonable to spend the amounts of time which were spent and has also to take into account what is a fair and reasonable amount of costs for the work concerned as a whole. I do consider that the amount of time expended in preparation ought reasonably to have been somewhat less than recorded and requested and deductions totaling VT 33,000 have been made from the bill of costs as a whole to recognize my view in this respect.

3. Ms. Harders also showed a 10% loading on the bill for urgency and importance of the application. My view is that such a loading is appropriate in certain circumstances and the need for it is recognized in Rule 15.8 (3) (f) and (g) particularly. This particular application was urgent and it would have been necessary for all other work to have been dropped in order to deal with it. As well as that it is important, relating to the management of one of the state owned companies in the country involving Vanuatu internal air transport and a substantial part of its international air transport links. A loading for factors like this is well established in private practice and recognized also under the rules and is appropriate in this case. The 10% requested has therefore been applied.
   
4. The end result is that the total costs and disbursements allowed amount to VT 176,663 and together with the 10% loading, the costs are fixed at VT 194,329. As well an additional VT 5,000 is allowed for the costs of this attendance. The preparation of the bill has been allowed for in the bill itself.
   

Dated at Port Vila this 3 August 2007

BY THE COURT

C.N. TUOHY
Judge