Solomon Motors Ltd v Budget Rent a Car Corporation [1999] SBHC 90; HC-CC 215 of 1999 (8 September 1999)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

HC-CC No: 215 of 1999

SOLOMON MOTORS LIMITED

-v-

BUDGET RENT A CAR CORPORATION,
BUDGET RENT A CAR INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATION

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)
CIVIL CASE NO: 215 OF 1999

HEARING: 08 SEPTEMBER 1999
RULING: 08 SEPTEMBER 1999

SOL-LAW FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
MOTIS PACIFIC LAWYERS FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

PALMER J.: The focus on this application this afternoon by learned Counsel Ms Wilson for the Respondents must not be lost sight in the midst of Counsel's negotiations and attempt to get a settlement in place.

It was unfortunate for all that this application could not proceed yesterday (7th September 1999) as scheduled simply because the judge presiding, myself was not available due to illness. I find nothing to suggest that the Respondents were not in a position to proceed. I accept as undisputed that the Respondents had engaged overseas Counsel to attend on their behalf yesterday, who were prepared to proceed but could not; not of their own making. I had indicated in this hearing that I had left instructions with the Registry Clerks that I should be available today (Wednesday 8th September) or Thursday to hear the application of the Applicants if parties could agree on a date and time.

Parties however had seized on that time to enter into further negotiations, which they were entitled to do, to work on a settlement term.

It seems to me that whilst that was going on, there appeared to be some mis-understanding between Counsels themselves as to when the adjournment date for the Summons of the Applicant could be heard. It is clear there was mention of the 14/9/99 at 1:00 pm and an agreement in principle conceded by Mr McQuire. That adjournment would not have mattered had what appeared to be an agreement arrived at yesterday had been accepted as final by the parties this morning.

Up until this morning, therefore it was not clear to the parties themselves what the true position of the case would be. The adjournment date unfortunately had not been confirmed by this Court. That is clear in my view from submissions of learned Counsels.

I note Mr McQuire's submission that he is ready to proceed today. However the Respondents are not, without overseas Counsels who had been engaged to take up this matter. Whatever the submissions presented by Mr McQuire, whether right or not that this matter can be dealt with by Motis Lawyers, I bear in mind that the engagement of Overseas Counsel in this case is a right of the Respondents and that they had indeed demonstrated a willingness to come all the way to represent their client. To deny them that right now in my respectful view would not be fair to the Respondent.

But of importance in my respectful view is the fact that no adjournment date had actually been confirmed by this Court or the Registry Office to Counsels. The matter had simply been left in limbo till this afternoon.

I also bear in mind no prejudice will be suffered by the Applicants if an adjournment is granted to the 14th.

I also point out that whether overseas Counsel are available on that date or not, will not affect the hearing on that date. Motis Lawyer must be prepared to proceed with the case in their absence.

On the issue of costs, whilst I appreciate the concerns and submissions raised, in my respectful view the proper order for costs would be in the cause.

Adjournment made to 14/9/99 at 2:00 pm. Orders made by this court on 30/8/99 which affect this matter to continue.

THE COURT