Guo v AUSTREE Enterprise Pty Ltd [2016] SBCA 21; SICOA-CAC 27 of 2016 (14 October 2016)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

NATURE OF JURISDICTION:	Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands
COURT FILE NUMBER:	CivilAppeal Case No. 27 of 2016 (On Appeal from High Court CivilCase No. 322 of 2012)
DATE OF HEARING:	13OCTOBER2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14OCTOBER 2016
THE COURT:	Goldsbrough P LunabekJA Young JA
PARTIES:	SHIYAO GUO Applicant CHINA UNITED (SI) CORPORATION LTD 2nd Applicant RAY CHU 3rd Applicant JUNBIN GUO 4th Applicant JUNZONG GUO 5th Applicant V AUSTREE ENTERPRISE PTY LTD 1st Respondent ZONG WU ZHOU 2nd Respondent LING YUN ZHOU 3rd Respondent
ADVOCATES: Applicants: Respondent:	Mr. D. A. Smallboneand with him Mr. W. D. Buckland Mr. J. Sullivan QC and with himMr. J Ward
EX TEMPORE/RESERVED:	RESERVED
ALLOWED/DISMISSED	DISMISSED
PAGES	3

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the High Court in the above entitled matter. In addition to the application for leave there is filed a draft notice of appeal and an application for stay. At the request of the applicants we agree that the question of leave and the substantive appeal can be heard together. In that regard we note that submissions from the Respondent were prepared on the same assumption.
2. To the extent that it is necessary we grant leave to the Applicants to amend the application where, in error, reference was made to only one applicant.
3. Then we turn to the application and today we deal only with the question of stay. It is agreed that this Court cannot consider the substantive appeal question for want of material, submissions and time. To that end we ask the Registrar to list the leave and appeal questions for the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in 2017.
4. We heard submissions from counsel on the question of a stay. We could not permit them as much time as they undoubtedly would have wanted to make oral submissions.
5. Our decision is that in the circumstances a stay is not granted. We note, however, that there is a pending application for further or amended directions to be heard by the trial judge early next week. Had that not been the case we might have disposed of this matter differently. We take the view that the claimants in this matter, the Respondents to this application, were granted a substantial indulgence by the Commissioner when he agreed to the amendments and that, perhaps, a similar indulgence might have been offered to the Applicants when they sought additional time to make adequate preparation to face the amended claim. The further directions hearing will afford an opportunity for that and we feel that the Commissioner, rather than this Court, can better accommodate that.
6. On this application we order costs to be costs on the substantive appeal.
   

................................................................................................................

Goldsbrough P

......................................................................................................................
LunabekJA

.....................................................................................................................
Young JA