Ado Corporation Solomons Ltd v Lagwaeano Sawmilling and Logging Company Ltd [2001] SBHC 104; HC-CC 103 of 2000 (30 March 2001)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL CASE NUMBER 103 OF 2000

ADO SOLOMONS CORPORATION LTD

-V-

LAGWAEANO SAWMILLING & LOGGING AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)

HEARING: 29TH MARCH 2001
JUDGEMENT: 30TH MARCH 2001

C. Ashley for the Applicants/Defendants
J. Hauirae for the Respondent/Plaintiff

PALMER J. This would be the fifth or sixth interlocutory application by Summons, filed 29th March 2000 by the Defendants, on more or less the same issues concerning proceeds of logs exported from the concession area, Lagwaeano Customary Land. When the matter first came before this Court under an ex parte application by the Plaintiff, filed 4th April 2000, this Court granted interim orders restraining the proceeds of logs exported on or about 1st April 2000. The matter was then listed, for inter partes hearing for 7th April 2000. When parties appeared, it was mutually agreed that the case be adjourned generally, with liberty to restore as there was a strong possibility that the case would be settled. No further orders or directions hence, were made. It appears the interim orders granted then, converted to interlocutory orders. On 26th April 2000, Defendants filed application to have the Order of 4th April 2000 discharged, or in the alternative, varied (see summons filed 26th April 2000). Before that application could be heard, a consent order was filed on 8th May 2000. The terms of that consent order is crucial to any future dealings between the parties, and if only Counsels had taken cognition of the terms of that consent order as agreed upon, most of these interlocutory applications in my respectful view, would not have been necessary. The next application then, was a summons filed 31st July 2000, to restrain proceeds of the next shipment. It did not take into account the previous consent order made on 8th May 2000. This appears to have been the trend with all the interlocutory applications thereafter, and resulting in the same old issues having to come to Court and be re-agitated, and to that extent taking up unnecessary time of the Court and perhaps unnecessary costs. Again a consent order was filed on 9th August 2000, giving due recognition without so saying, to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Consent Order of 8th May 2000 (see paras. 1 and 2 of the order of 9th August 2000).

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Consent Order of 8th May 2000 have never been varied or discharged. This is consistent with the original orders sought when the original ex parte application was made before this Court on 4th April 2000, in that no orders to restrain the logging activities of the Defendants was ever sought. It only stands to reason that in allowing the 3rd and 4th Defendants to continue with their logging activities, as independent contractors, that their dues should also be paid. Counsels should also address their minds to the question whether there is actually a cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Defendants at this point of time, especially in view of the consent orders of 8th May 2000. In my respectful view, any future order for deductions must necessarily include those deductions.

As for separate deductions to the Second Defendants, that is still a live issue between the parties and hence cannot be granted. The Second Defendant’s share is tied up with the First Defendant’s share.

As regarding the discharge of the orders of 2nd February 2001, those orders remain in place and the amounts due stand charged against the parties affected. The problem which arose from that shipment is as a result of the Plaintiff not being alert enough to obtain a suitably worded order that would cover future shipments and payments. I now intend to make orders to protect the interest of the parties pending determination of the issues in this case.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Leave is granted to abridge time to hear the Summons of the Defendants filed 29th March 2001.
   
2. Refuse order 2 sought in said Summons.
   
3. Vary Order dated 9th March 2001 by including a new paragraph 1A to read:
   

“That the contractor’s fees of the 4th Defendant to be deducted.”

4. Hereinafter restrain all proceeds of any further shipments of logs, to be paid into an interest bearing deposit account at National Bank of Solomon Islands Limited in the names of Solicitors for the parties, until further orders or trial of this action, save the following expenses:-
   
   • (a) Statutory expenses;
     
   • (b) Management fees of the 3rd Defendant;
     
   • (c) Contractor’s fees of the 4th Defendant.
     
5. Refuse orders sought in paragraph 3(ii) of the Summons filed 29th March 2001.
   
6. Costs in the cause.
   

THE COURT.