Lili Store v Hong Li Ltd [2011] SBCA 15; CA-CAC 10 of 2011 (25 November 2011)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
NATURE OF JURISDICTION:	Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands (Justice Goldsbrough)
COURT FILE NUMBER:	Civil Appeal No 10 of 2011(On Appeal from High Court Civil Case No 160 of 2009)
DATE OF HEARING:	17th November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 November 2011
THE COURT:	Sir Robin Auld, President
	Sir John Hansen, JA
	Justice Gordon Ward J A
PARTIES:	Lili Store (Appellant)
	-v-
	Hong Li Limited (Respondent)
ADVOCATES:
Appellant:	Mr C Hapa
Respondent:	Mr M Tagini
Allowed/Dismissed	Allowed
PAGES:	3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] This is an appeal as of right from a decision of Justice Goldsbrough assessing damages dated the 7th of April 2001. In his decision the judge awarded damages to the Respondent on the appeal in the sum of $658, 138.25 in total. It is also considered that there should be interest of the prevailing statutory right of 5% per annum from the date of claim to the date of judgment in the sum of $63,069.00 as of that date a total of $721, 207.25. What is at the heart of this appeal is that in the order presented for perfecting the Respondent in this appeal inserted paragraphs 3 and 4 which claimed interests at 5% per day from the date of judgment until settlement. A figure that Mr Hapa told us in submissions amounted to 1,825.5% per annum. When one refers back to Justice Goldsbrough's written decision, at paragraph 5, he made it plain that after judgment interest would be at prescribed rate until payment. He further stated at paragraph 10 interest at a prevailing rate of 5% is payable from the date of judgment to settlement. Mr Tagini conceded to this Court that the prevailing rate was a statutory rate that is 5% per annum.

[2] We have struggled to understand where the figure of 5% per day came from and how it became inserted in the order of the perfection when it was clearly wrong. We accept it was a perfected order but quite clearly the judge overlooked the matter and it was a simple error that can happen to any judge at any time. But we repeat, we have no knowledge of how Mr Tagini arrived at that particular figure on a daily basis.

[3] I follow that the appeal against assessment of damages must be allowed, the perfected orders and clauses 3 and 4 and 5 are quashed.

[4] The next matter to address is the fact that at the date of judgment, the Respondent was holding in their solicitor's trust account some $778, 483.55 on account of the debt claimed. It is clear that as of that date sufficient monies were held to satisfy the judgment debt and interest from the date of claim until the date of judgment. In those circumstances we think it inappropriate to award any interest whatsoever from the date of judgment forward. Indeed it means there remains in the trust account of the solicitor, some $57,276.30. Subject to any questions of costs in the Court below, that should be refunded.

[5] We are satisfied that on the appeal, costs should be awarded to the appellant on an indemnity basis.

Sir Robin Auld
President

Sir John Hansen, JA
Member

Gordon Ward, JA
Member