PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of the Cook Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of the Cook Islands >> 2013 >> [2013] CKHC 47

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF


In re land known as Puoromea 49D, Avarua [2013] CKHC 47; Application 390.2011 (10 October 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS

HELD AT RAROTONGA
(LAND DIVISION)
APPLICATION NO. 390/2011


IN THE MATTER
of Section 492 of the Cook Islands Act 1915


AND


IN THE MATTER of the land known as
PUOROMEA 49D, AVARUA


AND


IN THE MATTER of a Deed of Lease dated 24th May 1972
and a Deed of Sublease dated 20th August 1979 now vested in
COOK ISLANDS TELECOMMUNICATION ASSETS LIMITED


Judgment: 10 October 2013


JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE PATRICK SAVAGE


[1] When landowners engage in litigation and retain lawyers in the Cook Islands there is often a question as to how counsel is to be paid.

[2] Logically the owners should pay for expenses such as this on a pro-rata basis and according to their shares. This can be difficult for, under s 492 of the Cook Islands Act 1915, prima facie, the Registrar simply pays out to the owners and then the legal expenses have to be collected.

[3] The logistics of this as human nature mean that some will not pay and some will have to pay more and the whole process becomes messy. Where there are questions of public importance at issue Courts might attempt to lubricate the flow of litigation with the appointment of an amicus. These owners however have a steady income. There is no reason why counsel in this matter and in this litigation should not be paid in a full and orderly manner.

[4] The application seeks, in effect, that $25,000 be held in a fund by the Registrar and not be immediately paid out to the owners and that terms be fixed whereby the Registrar, with the appropriate consents, would pay legal bills directly.

[5] That may create problems where there are rifts in families or land owning groups but that is not the case here. The landowners are of three lines and there is a representative for each of the lines who consents to the order as is sought. In that regard this should not be taken as an indication that this decision should be regarded as a precedent.

[6] The Registrar will be required to be assured at the time of payment that the consent of the three lines of owners endures.

[7] There being no objection, I now order:

_______________________
Patrick Savage, J


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ck/cases/CKHC/2013/47.html