Tong v Emery [1997] SBHC 13; HC-CC 032 of 1991 (1 April 1997)

HIGH COURT OF THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 32 of 1991

MADALENE TONG

v

ROBERT V EMERY
AND JOHN SULLIVAN

ckquote>

Before: LUNGOLE-AWICH, J

Hearing: 20^th February 1997
Direction: 1^st April 1997

C Ashley for Madalene Tong
Administrators in person

DIRECTION

LUNGOLE-AWICH, J:

For reasons I have given below, direction other than a judgment in the application argued on 20.2.1997 is appropriate at this stage.

In the course of writing judgment in the application filed on 29.11.1996 and argued in court on 20.2.1997, I realised that important papers are missing on both sides. In the applicants papers, she alleged that following the order of this court made on 15.7.1996 the Co-Administrators offered to pay AU$220 per child per month, and she stated that she believed that the sums offered after the order of this court made on 15.7.1996, are less than the sums paid before they were discontinued, which totalled to AU$2 620 for the children and her. She has not filed the court order or other documents upon which she relies for the correct calculation of the total maintenance sum. The court order or other documents should have been attached to the affidavit founding the application. For the Co-Administrators, Mr. John Sullivan's affidavit outlined payments totalling AU$11,660 based on AU$220 per child per month. Mr. Sullivan, like the applicant failed to annex the court order or any other documents on which the figure of AU$220 per child per month is based. He also did not state whether or not the widow was being paid maintenance and how much. Further, if the widow was being paid, the authority by which she was being paid.

I do not see the reason why the court should be led into deciding sums of money in Australian dollar or any other foreign currency. The estate comprises assets in Solomon Islands. Whatever the intended beneficiaries do with the money in Australia or elsewhere is not the concern of this court. In view of the above, I direct that parties file at court the court orders or any other documents which support the calculation of the maintenance sum they say is the correct one. If necessary the documents may be supplemented by explanatory affidavits. If the sums paid were not based on court order or any document, clear explanation of the authority for the sums must be stated in supplementary affidavits. Compliance with directions in this paragraph is required within 14 days. It is not for the court to search for justification for an applicant's case or respondent's defence.

I mentioned in court that the applicant was to co-operate and state whether or not she accepts settlement of cases involving the estate so that winding up the estate proceeds faster. I have not seen any paper in response to that on the case file. I have also not seen any report of the Co-Administrators filed in compliance with paragraph 1 of the order of this court made on 15.7.1996. Parties are advised to comply immediately; failure will result in the court considering an appropriate court order. Compliance with directions in this paragraph is required within 21 days.

Dated this 1^st day of April 1997
At the High Court, Honiara

Sam Lungole-Awich,
Judge

--webbot bot="Includnclude" u-include="../../../footer.html" tag="BODY" startspan -->

[About the School of Law] | [Courses Offered] | [Course Materials] | [Staff]
[Pacific Law Materials] | [Journal of South Pacific Law]
[Emalus Campus Library] | [Recommended Internet Links]
[Latest Additions] | © University of the South Pacific 1998-2002

If you you have any comments, suggestions or difficulties with using this web site please email
Robynne Blake, Internet Project Manager, The School of Law, The University of the South Pacific or fax: [phone]

Last Update: Friday, July 05, 2002 09:39