Roni v Ross Mining (Solomon Islands ) Ltd [1997] SBHC 68; HC-CC 060 of 1997 (8 August 1997)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 60 of 1997

WILLIE RONI AND ANOTHER

-V-

ROSS MINING (SOLOMON ISLANDS) LIMITED AND OTRS

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Hearing: 7th August, 1997
Ruling: 8th August, 1997

J. Katahanas for the Fourth Respondents
A. Radclyffe for the First and Second Respondents
B. Titiulu for the Third Respondent
C. Ashley for the First and Second Applicants

PALMER J.: The Applicant/Fourth Respondents apply by summons filed on 5th August, 1997, inter alia, to have this action (Civil Case number 60 of 1997) and Civil Case number 168 of 1997 be tried and heard together as a consolidated action under Civil Case number 60 of 1997. In the hearing before this Court however, Mr Katahanas for the Fourth Respondents decided not to proceed with the application for consolidation. Instead, sought to have the Court agree to have both actions tried and heard together on the same date nevertheless. The main submission in support of this was that both actions in many ways raise similar issues and that it would be convenient and time saving if both actions are heard together. The application is not opposed by Mr Ashley, Counsel for the First and Second Applicants. Mr Radclyffe on the other hand, Counsel for the First and Second Respondents raised a valid concern that if this was to be accepted by the Court, then it would delay further the action in Civil Case number 60 of 1997. This he argues would unnecessarily delay that action when at this stage, the parties are looking towards a trial in the substantive action before the close of this year.

While this Court appreciates that there may be some merit in seeking to have the two actions heard and tried together, I am of the contrary view that it would unnecessarily delay the first action which in itself had taken some time to come this far. There is actually some benefit in having the first action proceed to trial in the normal way without any further delays in that it would in a way shift out any similar issues sought to be raised in the second action and thereby actually work to the advantage of the parties in leaving for the trial court only those issues that are different and distinct.

The orders sought therefore to have both actions heard and tried together in my respectful view should be refused.

Further directions of the Court in respect of this matter in relation to the Fourth Respondents should be as follows:

1. Any request for Particulars of the Applicants’ Statement of Claim be delivered by 22nd August, 1997.

2. The First and Second Applicants to deliver further and better particulars within 14 days of receipt (if any) but in any event no later than 5th September, 1997.

3. The Fourth Respondent deliver its defence and counterclaim (if any) within 14 days of receipt of particulars ( if any) but in any event no later than 19th September, 1997.

4. The First and Second Applicants file their Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim within 14 days of receipt of the Fourth Respondent’s Defence and Counterclaim but in any event no later than 3rd October, 1997.

5. A further directions hearing is fixed for 8th October, 1997 at 2.00 pm.

6. The parties have liberty to apply for further orders or directions on giving of 7 days notice.

THE COURT.