Ioane v Kake [2011] CKHC 3; Misc 112 of 2010 (2 February 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT AITUTAKI
(CIVIL DIVISION)

MISC NO. 112/2010
[AITUTAKI]

IN THE MATTER of the election of the Members of Parliament of the Cook Islands held on the 17th November 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of Section 92 of the Electoral Act 2004

ter">AND

IN THE MATTER of Sections 7(4) and 20(4) of the Electoral Act 2004

BETWEBETWEEN

KETE IOANE
Petitioner

AND

MONA IOANE KAKE
First Respondent

AND

TAGGY TANGIMETUA
Second Respondent

AND

MARK TEREI SHORT
Third Respondent

Hearing: 2 and 3 February 2011
(Held in Aitutaki)

Counsel: Mrs T Browne for Petitioner
Mr P Lynch for First Respondent
Mr H Matysik for Second and Third Respondents

Ruling: 2 February 2011

RULING (No. 1) OF THE HON. WESTON CJ

Tne, Bro, Browne Harveyarvey & Associates, Avarua, Rarotonga
P Lynch, Paul Lynch Consulting Ltd, Ngatangiia Rarotonga
H Matysik, Little & Matysik PC, Maraerenga, Avarua, Rarotonga

[1] There is before the Court an application to strike out the Petition on the grounds that it does not provide sufficient particulars as required by s 92(4) of the Electoct #160;2004 ("the Act"). The application was argued before me in advance of the scheduled hearing of the Petition. In particular, Mr Lynch submitted the S Ameneed Petition dated 21 December 2010 lacked sked sufficient particulars in rein relation to dates and circumstances.
[2] I decline the application. I am sympathetic to the notion that the Second Amended Peed Petition conceivably could have provided some further particulars, but I think there is a bare minimum there for the First Respondent to be able to meet the claim against him. The question of whether the First Respondent has been put to extra trouble and expense is a matter that may in due course sound in costs.

[3] There is another issue concerning paragraphs 8 and 9 of an affidavit by a Mr Anitonia. Mr submits that these paragraragraphs appear to raise issues that are new. Mrs Browne confirms that the nore not intended to new s and are generally part of the background. I am concerned, however, that Mr&#160 Lync;Lynch's clientbe requirequired to meet thllegations which have come very late in the piece. While I le I am not prepared to strike out paragraphs 8 and 9 at this stage I am gto reserve my position in relation to them until I have heae heard the evidence, and I will address them again in closing if Mr Lynch believes he has been prejudiced in his ability to deal with these allegations. I will hear from him then and address them accordingly.

Weston CJ