Totorea v Grainger Corporation (Vanuatu) Ltd [1995] SBHC 109; HCSI-CC 74 of 1995 (21 March 1995)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 74 of 1995

JOSEPH RODI TOTOREA

-v-

GRAINGER CORPORATION (VANUATU) LTD INTERNATIONAL CASINO SERVICES LTD ANDY AYAMISEBA
VINCE CONTE
SEAN GULLY

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)
Civil Case No.74 of 1995

Hearing: 20/3/95
Ruling: 21/3/95

F.Waleilia for Plaintiff
J.Corrin for Defendants

PALMER J: Pursuant to the orders of this Court made on the 14th of March, 1995, the Defendants now apply by summons filed on the 17th of March, 1995 for approval of payment of certain expenses of the Honiara Gaming Club.

Paragraph 1 (i) relates to the invoices and accounts from all normal business creditors, details of which are more particularly spelled out in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Andy Ayamiseba filed on the 20th of March, 1995.

Mr. Waleilia has raised an important point, scilicet, the absence of supporting details to justify the genuiness of the payments due to the creditors listed in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit. Accordingly, I will direct that details be filed with this Court within 7 days and copies served on Mr. Waleilia as well. Where amounts are agreed upon, then a consent order should be filed. Where no agreement is reached then the matter should be brought before this Court for determination.

The only amount not contested is the rental to Franwing Limited of $4,500.00. Accordingly, approval is granted for this. I will grant a general approval on this so that payments are made on a monthly basis without further approval required from this Court. The only requirement is that details are filed or copies of receipts sent to the Court’s file for record purposes.

Paragraph 2 of the Summons seeks approval for payment of winnings to be made to successful clients of the business. Approval is also sought for a cash float to be retained of at least $500,000.00 to be used for payment of winnings, and further approval for payment of winnings in excess of $20,000.00 to be paid by cheque.

The payment of winnings from the cash float of amounts less than $20,000.00 is not objected. Accordingly, approval is granted provided that details of winners and amounts are noted and kept in some register book and to be made available to Mr. Waleilia for inspection, and by this Court on request. Winnings of more than $20,000.00 may be payable by cheque but that will have to be done the next day from the Trust Account. A system of payment can be worked out whereby, winners may be given some sort of note or details of winnings, recorded during the night and presented to the signatories the next day for payment from the Trust Account. Again a suitable arrangement can be made where Counsels make themselves available for such purposes at a certain time in the morning each day. What should be borne in mind is that winning clients may want the first $20,000.00 to be paid from the cash float and the remainder collected the next day. That should be fine, provided the details are noted in the register book.

Paragraph 3 seeks payment of monthly management fees to the Second Defendant. Insufficient details have been filed and accordingly, I would also require that details be filed and copies served on Mr. Waleilia, and where agreement is obtained, then this should also be included in a consent order.

Re paragraph 4, the time for service of this Summons is abridged.

Mr. Waleilia has raised another matter concerning having his client or one of his agents present during the counting of the takings at the end of the day. I see no real problems with this and the Defendants should welcome this suggestion if there is nothing to hide, to show that all the takings collected have indeed been accounted for and that the suspicions of the Plaintiff are baseless. Whether the Plaintiff or any of his agents are present or not would not make any difference to the counting of the takings.

I do not consider it appropriate to incorporate this matter into an order at this point of time. However, if the Plaintiff is to make an application for such an order, then supporting affidavits must be filed.

Costs in the cause.

A.R. PALMER
JUDGE