Lasi v North New Georgia Timber Corporation [1998] SBHC 17; HC-CC 253 of 1996 (2 March 1998)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 253 of 1996

IBOY LASI, GORDON RENCE

(Directors representing the Gerasi Tribe)

p clas class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> v

/p>

NORTH ORTH NEW GEORGIA TIMBER CORPORATION

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)
Civil Case No. 253 of 1996

p class="Mss="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hear3 February 1998
Ruling: 2 March 1998

p>

J. W. Talasasa for thor the Respondents

n lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Times New Roman"> RULING

MURIA CJ: The Respondent challenged the right of Mr. Philip Tegavota of Counsel to represent the two applicants in this case.

The princieasons relied upon by Mr. Talasasa who appeared as a representative of the respondent in his capacity as the Chairman and Director is that Mr. Tegavota would have a conflict of interest if he is to continue to represent the applicants in the present case. In his affidavit filed on 10^th April 1997, Mr. Talasasa deposed that Garden Rence (one of the applicants) caused a special meeting of the representative to be called, the notice of which was drafter by Mr. Tegavota. Again in the same affidavit Mr. Talasasa further deposed that Mr. Tegavota and Mr. Mori were joint trustees in the NB Bank Account for the Merest Tribe. In Court Mr. Talasasa submitted that as Mr. Tegavota acted for the respondent in the past paying him substantial legal fees, it would be a conflict of interest for Mr. Tegavota to now act against the respondent.

Mr. Tegavota agreed te had acted for the respondspondent in CC313/95. However he was asked by Mr. Talasasa to stop acting for the respondent and so he ceased to act for the respondent since 1995. In an earlier case, CC387/93, in which the landowners brought claims against Golden Springs International (SO) Co. Ltd and the respondent, Mr. Tegavota was retained by Golden Springs and also acted for the Respondent. The matter went to the Court of Appeal which ordered a re-hearing. That case was resolved. Since 1995. Mr. Tegavota ceased acted for the respondent and so there is no longer any conflict of interest if he is to act for the applicant in the present case.

ass="Mss="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Having considered the facts as put before the Court particularly where iere it has been shown that Counsel, now acting for the applicants who are members of the Board of Directors of the respondent, had acted for the respondent in the past at least up to 1995 on a couple of occasions together with the fact that in those previous occasions when he acted for the respondent, one of the applicants namely, Gordon Rence was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Respondent, can it be said that the same legal practitioner would be in a position of conflict of interest if he were to act for the applicants against the respondent in the present case? This is a matter of importance to our young legal profession in this country and so I feel some form of test ought to be applied so that legal practitioners may be guided in this area of practice of the law. I would prefer the test to be put in this way. Given the facts as disclosed, are there present circumstances of potential conflicts of interest which dictate that he (Mr. Tegavota) cannot represent the clients. This test is appropriate in this case in my view since not only that the respondent is interested in the legal practitioner’s position but that the applicants’ interest be also properly represented. There is that fiduciary duty of a solicitor to his client that calls an him to refrain from acting for a client where there are circumstances of potential conflict on the part of the solicitor in a matter.

Each case must be determined according to its own circumstances. Ins. In the present I apply the test earlier set out. Three factors are relevantly noted. Firstly, there is the fact that the previous cases in which Counsel acted for the respondent arose, dealt with and completed three years ago; secondly, the circumstances and nature of those cases were different to the present case; and thirdly, that Counsel had ceased to act for the respondent since 1995. The circumstances in other cases, may not be the same and so the test set out earlier would have to be considered in the light of those circumstances.

The respondent’s applicais refused.

<

As to costs, I think the reent does not stand to gain gain anything personally by raising this important question. In fact the benefit is both to the applicants and respondent now that the point has been clarified. I exercise the Court’s discretion and directed that there will be no order for costs.

Orccordingly.

<

(GJB Muria)uria)
CHIEF JUSTICE