Watts v Tongs Corporation [1999] SBHC 156; HCSI-CC 62 of 1999 (8 April 1999)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

HC-CC 06299 of 1999

PRESLEY WATTS & ORS

-v-

TONGS CORPORATION LIMITED

High Court of Solomon dslands
(Muria, CJ)

Hg: 8 April 1999
Rulr>Ruling: 8 April 1999

A. Radclfor Plaintifintiffs
J. Katahanas for Defendai>MURIA C.J.:

All the othe other orders contained in the Draft Orde Order have been agreed to saved for that of the Order in paragraph 5aph 5 seeking costs of this application to be paid by the plaintiffs who argued that the costs of today's hearing be 'costs in the cause'.

This is the defend summ summons seeking a number of interlocutory orders all of which have been agreed to by the plaintiffs, save for the costs of the hearing of the summons. Counsel for the defendant submitted had the plaintiffs taken rken responsible attitude, the hearing today could have been avoided. Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, took instructions and agreed to all the orders except for the order as to costs of this application.

From the correence as w as well as from arguments put before the Court, it is clear that the plaintiffs are not easily to be persuaded to pay xpenses and costs associated with the alleged trespass and operation by the defendant onto onto their land. Only at this hearing that Counsel for the plaintiffs obtained instructions from his clients that they agreed to the order allowing expenses incurred by the defendant to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of logs felled subject to their right to apply to the Court for approval in the event of dispute over the payment of such expenses. It is not at all surprising that they felt that they should not have to bear the costs of the defendant's application.

In gl, the decision as n as to which party should be granted costs is a matter for the discretion of the Court. There may be occasions when the Court may award costs to one party where the other phas adopted a course of actf action which was unnecessary or obviously improper or where the hearing was one which should never have had to take place. I am not satisfied that the present case is such a case.

It is mw that in cases ases where disputes have arisen as a result of logging companies allegedly trespassing onto customary land and such disputes involved the ascertnt of the rights of all those involved in the disputes, par, particularly, as to the rights over the land over which the alleged trespass took place, it is a wise practice that order for costs at this interlocutory stage be "Costs in the cause." Those costs will follow the outcome of the trial when the successful party will be entitled to all his costs.

Again, I feel this iropppropriate also, as the merit of the dispute is yet to be decided upon.

The costs of applicatiocation be costs i cause.

CHIEF JUSTICE

>