Patrick Defence Logistic v Iro [2008] SBHC 61; HCSI-CC 78 & 79 of 2007 (28 August 2008)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 78 and 79 of 2007

PATRICK DEFENCE LOGISTIC

V

MARGARET& TIMOTHY IRO

FAUKONA, J.

Date of Hearing: 27 August 2008
Date of Ruling: 28 August 2008

Katahanas for the Appellant
M. Bird for the Respondents

RULING

Faukona, J.

This is an application for cost assessment by Mr. Katahanas. This follows a successful appeal by Sol-Law on behalf of the Appellant. The application is based on Rule 24.5 as read with Rule 24.13 of the Solomon Islands Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2008, so that the court will certify the cost under Rule 24.30.

Mr. Katahanas has enumerated the actual cost in accordance with rates specified in Schedule 3 of S. I courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. And submit that item C (ii) being cost for having (first day) hearing be left for the discretion of this Court. Below is what he did.

Appellants cost should assessed as follows:

(a) Certify trial for Queens Counsel
(b) Legal Practitioner (Category C)-
(i) Brief preparation (trial less than 5 days –	3,000.00
(ii) Up to and including first court hearing or conference	2,000.00
(iii) After trial listing conference up to and Including the day prior to listing of trial	5,000.00
(iv) Trial (instructing solicitor) one half day	3,500.00
(v) Receiving and explaining judgment	700.00
(c) Counsel (Category C)
(i) Trial preparation (less than 5 days trial)	5,000.00
(ii) Hearing first day	7,500.00
TOTAL	26,700.00

Mr. Katahanas refer me to a case William Arahotara v. Solomon Airlines Limited[1], which the Chief Justice approved costs under the new rules.

Ms. Bird submitted that cost be assessed and directed to the Trade Dispute Panel for payment. Her clients (the respondents) are not causes of this appeal. It was the TDP’s determination which ultra vires its powers under the Act. She rely on last paragraph of the above case which says,

..."I am satisfied this case ought not to have been proceeded in that there is no good basis for it"...

There is no basis in Ms. Bird’s argument. Liability cannot be shifted to a determinant authority as the Panel, or even the courts, unless there is a real negligent or mistake identified. It was the respondents whose complaints were dismissed, thereafter by application convinced the Panel to set aside its own default dismissal order in their favour. An application which has no basis in law, as this court found eventually on appeal.

Awarding of cost to a successful party in civil litigation, against the unsuccessful party, is a normal practise by the courts, and Rules have clearly lay down the actual figures to be awarded. And of course they can be utilise by any successful party or in any situation where the court otherwise orders. There is no reason at all that the Panel should bear the cost in this case.

In assessing the costs I exercise my discretion to half the item c (ii). The actual cost is $7,500 for the first day of hearing. In this case submissions took only half day. The cost should be calculated at 7,500 ÷ 2 =3,750.00. This amount should be deducted from the total sum.

Order of the Court:

1. Approve costs as set out in the cost schedule filed and submitted on 27th August 2008, less $3,750.00
   
2. Grant judgment for costs in the sum of $22,950.00; payable in 28 days by the respondents.
   

THE COURT

---

^[1] [2003] HCSI-CC 261