Olsson v Solomon Time Ltd [2009] SBHC 66; HCSI-CC 417 of 2006 (6 November 2009)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Date of Hearing: 20,21,22,25,26 and 27 of May and 17 July 2009
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2009

Mwanesalua J: There are two claimants in this case. The first is William Fredrick Olsson, ("Fred") and the second is his wife, Gloria Elizabeth Olsson, ("Gloria").

1.	Fred holds a Certificate in Teaching and a Diploma of Mineral Processing Technology. He is a registered teacher in Queensland, Australia. He has many skills, including Teaching, Alluvial Mineral Evaluation, Mining Machinery, Management and Business Plans. On the other hand, Gloria holds a Diploma of Teaching (Secondary Commerce and Business) and is a registered Teacher in Queensland, Australia. Like her husband, she also has many skills, including secondary business teaching, computer programs, and Management and Business Plans.

2.	The defendant is Solomon Time Limited, a Limited Company incorporated in Solomon Islands on 22 November 2004. It obtained approval from the Foreign Investment board (FIB) on 23 June 2005 to engage in, among other things, buy and process alluvial gold in Solomon Islands for export. The defendant has 3 shareholders. They are Pamela Lorraine Kimberly (Pamela), her sister Sharon Keyser, and Rehab Kuper (Rehab). The foreign investors in the defendant are Pamela and Sharon Keyser from the USA. Rehab is a Solomon Islander. The directors of the defendant at all material times were Pamela and Rehab. The defendant’s business premises was then located in Konsela Market Building in Honiara, adjacent to the Honiara Main Market Building. The defendant is required by the FIB to employ, train Solomon Islanders and to comply with Solomon Islands Laws.

3.	Fred and Gloria claim that they signed employment agreements (contracts) with the defendant and were its employees. However, the defendant unlawfully terminated them when it refused to allow them to work and told the Commissioner of Labour to cancel their Work Permits as they were no longer its employees. The permits were accordingly cancelled with effect from 4 July 2006. They were thus unable to continue their employment with the defendant.

4.	As a result, Fred and Gloria filed these proceedings against the defendant on 17 October 2006, seeking damages for breach of their contracts. They claim from the defendant: (1) damages for breach of contract in the sum of SBD1,990,000; (2) Interest on the SBD1,990,000; (3) the return of their properties given to the defendant valued at AUD11,000 and costs.

5	Under his contract, Fred was employed as an Alluvial Gold Education Consultant, to: (a) provide services as an alluvial gold education consultant whilst acting as agent for the gold operations of defendant; (b) provide management of the gold buying operations of the defendant; (c) purchasing items required in the gold buying operations so required, and maintain their proper records; (d) Liaise with gold sellers and/or gold processing on behalf of the defendant; (e) training persons selected and agreed between the defendant, Fred and Gloria; and (f), provide small scale alluvial gold training in recovery, dressing, buying and smelting of product.

6	Under her contract, Gloria’s duties were the same as those of Fred, but under her Work Permit, she was to be involved in Gold Administration – Management Consultant; record keeping and training as set out in her work permit.

7	The case for the defendant is that it merely engaged Fred and Gloria in an oral agreement to manage its gold buying operations and to train indigenous Solomon Islanders in all aspects of alluvial gold mining with the view of those Solomon Islanders selling their gold to it. It claims that Pamela made this agreement on its behalf with Fred and Gloria in November 2005 on an unknown date in its Office in Honiara, after Pamela and Fred made a visit to the Shortland Islands.

8	The terms of that Oral Agreement included, among other things, that:-

	1(a)	Fred and Gloria would educate and train indigenous Solomon Islanders from appropriate locations in Western Province and Guadalcanal in all aspects of small scale alluvial gold mining including: direct training and education to develop proficiency in the use of small scale mining equipment; training in fast and efficient panning and sluicing techniques; training in efficient alluvial gold and mineral dressing procedure; determining applicable machinery for use in different alluvial scenarios; training in safe and effective fine gold recovery and dressing through to smelting; training in education in workplace, health and safety; providing specialist alluvial mineral processing and technology services to the defendant and manage the defendant’s gold buying operations and office in Honiara.

	1(b)	The defendant also asserts that further terms of the Agreement were to the effect that there would be an initial trial period of 6 months after which it would be reviewed; the defendant would provide accommodation to Fred and Gloria; until the profits of the defendant’s gold business were determined at the end of the trial period, Fred and Gloria would be paid a combined amount of AUD6,000 per month, being an advance to Fred and Gloria recoverable out of their future share of the profits; that if the agreement was not renewed after the trial period, then Fred and Gloria would not compete with the defendant’s gold business within Solomon Islands; that profit sharing under the joint venture would enable Fred and Gloria to receive a combined 40% of the net profit of the defendant’s gold buying operations;

	1(c)	The defendant asserts that the rate of SBD2,000 per fortnight in Fred’s initial draft contract was merely for the purposes of obtaining work permits as Fred and Gloria on a date prior to 18 November 2005 had requested written contracts for the purpose of supporting their Work Permit applications; that the amendment of SBD2,000 to SBD20,000 in Fred and Gloria’s contracts were neither authorized nor known to Pamela; that Pamela signed both contracts in ignorance of the amendments; and the contracts therefore neither reflected the true agreement between the defendant with Fred and Gloria nor do they constitute binding agreements between them.

Background

9.	Pamela met Fred and Gloria twice in Brisbane in 2004. She told them that she had a gold business in Solomon Islands but found difficulty in appraising gold. During the first meeting, Gloria had gold with her and Fred appraised it for her. Pamela, Fred and Gloria then exchanged contact addresses.

10.	On 22 June 2004¹, Pamela told Fred and Gloria about a plan she was working on. The plan was to establish a gold and goods trading post on Shortland Islands, as more cheaper gold would be derived from Bougainville than that bought in Honiara. Pamela said that they would make an agreement to share the profit between them and at the end of trading, Fred and Gloria would also be "paid X amount". Pamela asked them to have their police report in hand, because if they wanted to do the job, they would need to get work and resident permits in Solomon Islands. Fred came to Honiara in November 2004 and had discussions with Pamela. No agreement was concluded between them during that visit.

11.	Pamela asked Fred and Gloria to come to Honiara on 2 August 2005². She wanted them to go to the Shortland Islands to establish the trading post; train people from Fauro on how to mine gold and to establish the "money part" of the plan. Fred and Gloria came to Honiara in August 2005. They discussed work and residence permits with Pamela. They filled in parts of the application forms for Work Permits³, signed them, and left them with Rehab. They also discussed Project Paradise⁴ with Pamela during that visit. There was no agreement made between them during that visit as well.

12.	Fred and Gloria told Pamela on 6 October 2005⁵, that they were keen to start the project on Shortland Islands, and asked Pamela about their work permits. She told Fred and Gloria that she received approval on the Project from the Department of Mines and Energy⁶.

13.	On 11 October 2005⁷, Fred and Gloria told Pamela that they received a call from boys from Bougainville their discovery of gold deposits and needed help with small machines. The boys were in possession of licences which gave credence to the potential of the project. Fred and Gloria said that they were still very much focused to get onto the Shortland Islands project as soon as possible. Pamela said⁸ that was good news which could bring in AUD140,000 to AUD200,000 per month before expenses. The only hold up for her would be money. She said that she could probably come up with AUD10,000 and best people to be involved in the venture would be Fred and Gloria themselves. She said that she could hardly wait for them to establish a trading post on the Shortland Islands.

14.	Fred and Gloria told Pamela that they need to plot and pave the best way forward for the Project⁹. Things to be considered include trade goods and mining equipment etc – starting with basic items and build up to larger variety of "must have" items¹⁰. On 25 October 2005¹¹, Fred and Gloria told Pamela that Fred would come to Honiara in November 2005, with some items. However, Gloria would not accompany him because she needed to work on a PNG visa.

15.	Pamela asked Fred and Gloria to buy camping gear especially a good tent, on 6 November 2005¹². On the same day, Fred was packing up to come to Honiara and looking forward to travel to the Shortland Islands and Bougainville to check gold supply, quality, capitalized on opportunities and quickly establish a strong foothold market area in the Shortland Islands. He said the critical factor was to have ready funding to do the job. Fred arrived in Honiara on 10 November 2005. Upon his arrival, he and Pamela held discussion on how best to make money.

16.	On 7 December 2005¹³ Pamela advised Fred and Gloria that a kit house for a base at Mamalenna on Choiseul would be expensive. On the same day Fred and Gloria¹⁴ informed Pamela that they heard from a person from PNG that more gold was found and more so in Bougainville.

17.	On 9 December 2005¹⁵, Fred and Gloria told Pamela that they would return to Honiara to establish a positive cash flow, even sufficiently strong to fund the Western Project. Pamela¹⁶ responded on the same day asking Fred and Gloria to come to Honiara as soon as possible. She said she would set up an Office in Honiara. Upon their arrival, she would load camping gear in a boat and head for Choiseul, while Fred and Gloria organize things in Honiara. Fred and Gloria would follow later when the camp is ready, and Fred would go across to Bougainville.

18.	On 10 December 2005¹⁷, Fred and Gloria told Pamela that they needed a Goldridge Licence in their names and were prepared to take over Don’s prospecting licence for a sum of AUD2,000; need Work Permits to be issued to them; needed to have approval to cross to Bougainville to educate alluvial gold sellers there; they supported the setting up the base at Mamalenna, but the place needed to be secured before items were shipped there; and that when Pamela got down to Brisbane, Pamela would need to get the agreement between themselves in order as well.

19.	On 11 December 2005¹⁸, Pamela told Fred and Gloria to forget about the prospecting licence for Goldridge. She preferred the Western Project. She said that she could not wait to go there. She was selling the Office building in Honiara.

20.	Fred and Gloria informed Pamela on 2 January 2006¹⁹ that they would order extra pans and sieves worth AUD600 for educational purposes on Bougainville and other good sites in Solomon Islands.

21.	On 3 January 2006²⁰, Pamela told Fred and Gloria that she believed in the Project in the West, and that Fred and Pamela were putting all their effort into that project for their future and business. She suggested that Fred and Gloria spend some of their own money until money from the sell of gold was received from Australia. On the same day²¹, Fred and Gloria responded that money was needed that very day. They said they were working on a system to reduce the turn around dependency, so that there would be cash in hand to purchase gold. They worked out that AUD10,000 in gold trading would produce AUD3,000 profit per trade. Fred and Gloria said if they put in AUD10,000 of their own in gold trading, the profits generated from it could cover their minimal salary of AUD6,000 per month which they would need to survive. They explained that the money to pay them would come from themselves rather than from a different source. But their money would have to be paid back to them as soon as the gold buying business of the defendant builds up enough of its own profits to stablilise and self-sustain its buying capacity. Fred and Gloria transferred this AUD10,000 into Gold/Project Paradise Account.²² Fred and Gloria had also used their own money to, among other things, purchase materials and equipments for Project Paradise as set out on pages 60 to 63 of Exhibit 1.

Work Permits and Residence Permits

22.	Fred filled-in an application form²³ for his Work Permit in August 2005. Parts of it were filled-in by Rehab, a director of the defendant. The name of the employer in that form was the defendant. The period of employment was 2 years. Fred signed an employment contract²⁴ with the defendant on 11 November 2005. The salary would be SBD20,000 per fortnight. This contract had the Common Seal of the defendant which was signed by Rehab and Pamela who were its directors. The Labour Division issued a work permit²⁵ to Fred on 10 January 2006, which was valid until 10 January 2008. He was issued with a Permit to Enter and Reside²⁶ on 6 March 2006 which would have expired on 10 January 2008.

23.	Gloria also filled in an application form for a Work Permit²⁷ in August 2005 which was completed by Fred and Rehab. Fred signed an Employment Contract²⁸ on Gloria’s behalf with the defendant on 11 November 2005. The employment period was for 2 years. She was to be paid a salary equivalent to SBD20,000 per fortnight. The contract had the defendant’s common seal on it and signed by Pamela and Rehab. The Commissioner of Labour issued a Work Permit²⁹ to her for a period of 2 years from 10 January 2006 to 10 January 2008. The employer was the defendant. Gloria applied for a Permit to Enter and Reside³⁰ on 6 February 2006 and the employer in that application form was the defendant.

24	Employment Contracts merely to Obtain Work Permits The defendant asserts that it merely signed the contracts with Fred and Gloria, not to govern their relationship, but because on an unknown date prior to their execution, Fred and Gloria requested written contracts to support their applications for work permits. The true position is that, it was Pamela who first told Fred and Gloria that they would need work permits. She told them so on 22 June 2004³¹ to get their police reports in hand, if they wanted to take on the task of establishing a gold and goods trade post in the Shortland Islands. Fred and Gloria then responded by obtaining their Police Clearance Certificates³² from the Queensland Police Service on 7 July 2004. This was before Fred and Gloria came to see Pamela in August 2004 and filled-in their application forms³³ for work permits. Fred and Gloria did point out the importance of acquisition of work permits for them on 6 November 2005³⁴, but that was a follow up on their previous enquiry on the work permits on October 2005³⁵. Although contracts of employment are essential for purposes of applications for work permits, they are also required for purposes of obtaining permits to enter and reside under Immigration Act and the Employment Act. The Employment Act particularly requires employers to state the terms of employment of their employees in writing, the name of the employer and the employee; the date when the employment would begin; the remuneration and when payable; holidays, passage and so on. It was Pamela’s advise that Fred and Gloria get their work permits. It is therefore not correct to suggest that employment contracts were merely necessary to obtain work permits.

25.	SBD20,000 in Fred and Gloria’s Employment Contracts The evidence is that Pamela told Rehab to follow the template on Dani Chatfield’s employment contract³⁶ for Fred and Gloria’s employment contracts. Rehab typed Fred’s name on the template and printed it out. She gave the document to Fred who made some corrections and inserted his duties in paragraph 2.2 of his contract. He then returned it to Rehab for typing. However, on the next day Fred went back to Rehab and told her that he had changed the amount of SBD2,000 per fortnight in paragraph 4(a) of the contract to SBD20,000 per fortnight. Rehab typed in the amendment but said she did not tell Pamela about it. Fred’s evidence is that he told Rehab he would tell Pamela about the amendment. He then went to discuss it with Pamela in her office. The Court does not believe Fred unilaterally changed the level of his salary in his contract. He told Gloria about the amendment he made and the discussion which he made with Pamela about it. She told him to do the same with her contract and authorized him to sign her contract on her behalf. That was exactly what he did with Gloria’s contract. (See his signature on Gloria’s contract). Rehab incorporated Fred’s services and duties in Fred’s contract in Gloria’s contract³⁷. This occurred because Rehab merely used Fred’s contract for Gloria’s contract. Rehab signed the contracts, stamped them with the Common Seal of the defendant and took them to Pamela to be signed as well. Rehab presented the pages of the contracts on which Pamela was required to sign. Rehab said she was not surprised. Pamela would have no need to read the contracts again if the amendment was earlier discussed with Fred. Pamela did not explain why she did not read the contracts before signing them. She said that she was ignorant of the amendments to SBD20,000 per fortnight and did not authorize them. The contracts were first signed by Fred on 18 November 2005 and sometime later by Rehab and Pamela as Directors of the defendant. The claim by Pamela that she neither read the contracts nor aware of the amendment on the salaries to SBD20,000 per fortnight raised a point of law.

26.	In Parker –v- South Eastern Ry Co.³⁸, Mellish L.J. laid down in a few sentences the Law which is applicable to this point. His Lordship said (1): "In an ordinary case, where an action is brought on a written agreement which is signed by the defendant, the agreement is proved by proving his signature, and in the absence of fraud, it is wholly immaterial that he has not read the agreement and does not know its contents". Further, In L’ Estrange –v- F.Graucob³⁹, Scruton L.J said: "When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud, or, I will add, misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not". There is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by Fred and Gloria in getting the contracts to be signed by Rehab and Pamela in this case. The principles in these two cases are therefore applicable to this case.

Written or Oral Contracts of Employment

27.	(a)	Fred and Gloria claim that they only signed contracts in writing with the defendant in November 2005⁴⁰. But the defendant asserts that it merely has an oral agreement of employment with Fred and Gloria. That was made in November 2005 after Fred and Pamela made a trip to the Shortland Islands. The defendant claims that the terms of that agreement were as set out in summary in paragraph 8 above. Pamela produced no records of the discussions leading up to that agreement nor adduce material facts in support of that agreement. She confined her facts to saying that Fred and Gloria would be paid a combined monthly salary of AUD6,000 for the initial period of 6 months; that agreement would be reviewed after the 6 months period; and if it was not reviewed, Fred and Gloria would not compete against the defendant’s gold business in Solomon Islands. There is therefore no evidence to prove the alleged terms of that agreement as set out in paragraph 8(a) above.

27.	(b)	It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that such agreement can be inferred from a paragraph in the email from Fred and Gloria to Pamela on 10 December 2005⁴¹. That paragraph states ...."5: When you come to Brisbane, we need to get the agreement between ourselves in order as well". Pamela said in her evidence that Fred came to Honiara on 10 November 2005 with the purpose of finalizing the share profit on the joint venture with her. She went on to say that Gloria and Fred had agreed on the combined monthly salary for Fred and Gloria at AUD6,000 for the initial period of 6 months. Pamela said that the share profit joint venture was finalized and agreed after she and Fred went on a trip to the Shortland Islands in November 2005. So, if the share profit agreement on this venture and the monthly salary for the 6 months initial period were finalized and agreed on November 2005, then what agreement did Fred and Gloria seek to put in order in the paragraph referred to above. This Court accepts that Pamela and Fred might have some discussions about a share profit agreement on the proposed Project Paradise. But as Fred said, the discussions have not been finalized. He said he would not have entered into such agreement in the form of an oral agreement because it would not protect him. He said the profits would come from the sale of gold and goods. This Court will therefore infer that the paragraph cited above relates to the question of the combined profit of gold and goods to be derived from Project Paradise which Fred said had not yet been settled. The result is that the share profit agreement on the proposed joint venture and an oral agreement have never been made at all.

27.	(c)	The defendant claims that part of the Oral Agreement was that Fred and Gloria would be paid a combined monthly salary of AUD6,000. How could Gloria take part on the discussions about it as she was in Australia and not in Honiara in November 2005. Fred said he only heard about the 6 months trial for the first time in Court. Gloria said Fred never mentioned it to her in their conversation over the phone during their talk about the amendments in their contracts on salaries. The combined monthly salary for Fred and Gloria was only first mentioned in their email⁴² to Pamela on 3 January 2006. They told Pamela that as the defendant had financial constraints to purchase gold, they would put in AUD10,000 of their own money into the defendant’s gold purchasing business to increase the purchase of gold. That money would generate a profits of about AUD3,000 per trade, sufficient to cover their minimal monthly salary of AUD6,000. They said the money to pay them would not come from a different source, but from their own money. They made it clear to Pamela that their money would be paid back to them in a lump sum as soon as the gold buying business of the defendant has built up enough of its own profits to stabilize and self-sustain its buying capacity. Their transfer of that amount to the Project Paradise Account can be inferred from their account in January 2006, as shown in their email of 22 May 2006⁴³ to Pamela. So the money and the idea that these payments would come from the defendant as allegedly agreed in November 2005 has no weight and merit.

27.	(d)	As mentioned earlier, Fred and Gloria signed their contracts with the defendant in November 2005. In those documents the defendant was their employer and they were its employees. They lodged applications for work permits and were subsequently issued the permits. Those documents again showed the defendant was their employer. They were issued with permits to Enter and reside. There too, the defendant was their employer. On 22 June 2006⁴⁴, the defendant as their employer requested the Commissioner of Labour to cancel their work permits. Their Work Permits were accordingly cancelled with effect as of 4 July 2006.⁴⁵

27.	(e)	First, it is hard to imagine how Pamela would have instructed Rehab to use Dani Chattfield’s template to draw up contracts of employment for Fred and Gloria to be signed with the defendant, if it was true that serious discussions and negotiations were going on between Pamela and Fred in November 2005 on the employment of Fred and Gloria under an oral agreement. Second, it is equally difficult to understand how Pamela and Fred could have finalized and entered into an Oral Agreement after the visit to the Shortland Islands, when written contracts of employment have been signed. The actions taken by Fred, Rehab and Pamela in relation to the contracts showed that no oral agreement had been made between Fred and Pamela. The documents referred to in paragraphs 9 to 19 above merely contained information, discussions and plans about Project Paradise. There were no material on how the project would be jointly developed and how the profits would be shared as it would cover profits from gold and the sale of goods. There are therefore insufficient facts before this Court to infer the existence of an Oral Agreement between the defendant and Fred and Gloria.

28	There is therefore no oral contract of employment in existence between the defendant and Fred and Gloria in this case. There are only written contracts of employment between them. The contracts were executed in November 2005 in Solomon Islands. These contracts are binding on the defendant on principles of law referred to in the two authorities cited above. So the relationship which exists between the defendant with Fred and Gloria is one of employer and employee.

Abandonment of Business

29	There were riots in Honiara on 18 April 2006. Pamela was in New Zealand at that time, leaving Fred and Gloria to manage her gold business and other projects such as restaurants and estate agent. On that day, people broke into the store situated on the ground floor of their office building and took away property. On 19 April 2006, in the afternoon, people gathered in the area close to the Office. Tear gas was fired by police. Fred and Gloria left the office and went to GBR beach for safety. On the same day, they were evacuated to Australia with other people by plane. Rehab did not come to work that day but remained at home for safety reasons. Pamela later met up with them in Brisbane. She was angry with them for leaving her business. She said she told them to remain in Honiara until she arrived. Fred and Gloria said Pamela did not tell them to do anything. Pamela told them to remain in Australia until things have settled down in Honiara. But their work permits were cancelled on the request of the defendant. This Court is of the view that Fred and Gloria had good reason to go to Australia for their own safety. They intended to return to Honiara soon. They were booked to return to Honiara on the same flight with Pamela on 22 April 2006. But Pamela would not allow them to do so. She said Fred and Gloria betrayed her when they left her business. She no longer had any trust in them. And that it was not appropriate for them to continue working for the defendant. Fred and Gloria did not abandon the business. They had no intention to leave the business completely but only went to Australia for their own safety. There was no damage done to the Office of the defendant.

30	The contracts which the defendant made with Fred and Gloria did not provide any clause for notice of termination. In that situation, a month’s notice would be appropriate under the Labour Act. In all the circumstances, Fred and Gloria’s contracts have been breached by the defendant.

Conclusions and Findings

31	This Court finds as follows:

	(1)	Fred and Gloria only have written contracts of employment with the defendant in November 2005.

	(2)	There was no oral agreement made by the defendant with Fred and Gloria in November 2005.

	(3)	Pamela prevented Fred and Gloria from performing their services and duties to the defendant under their contracts which resulted in their breach.

	(4)	The claims by Fred and Gloria succeed.

	(5)	The counter by the defendant succeeds.

Orders of the Court

	(1)	Damages for breach of contract in the sum of SBD1,990,000 for Fred and Gloria.

	(2)	Interest thereon.

	(3)	Return of Fred and Gloria’s gold and other possession listed in Exhibit. 38 or their value.

	(4)	Return of defendant’s property still in Fred and Gloria’s home or their value.

	(5)	Costs to Fred and Gloria.

1. Email on p.1 of Exhibit 1
2. Email p.2 of Exh. 1
3. Exh. 3 and 26
4. Exh. 16
5. Email at p.5 of Exh. 1
6. Exh. 18.
7. Email on p.6 of Exh.1
8. Email on p.6 of Exh. 1
9. Email on p.7 of Exh.1
10. Exh. 16
11. Email on p.8 of Exh.1
12. Email on p.9 of Exh. 1
13. Email on p.12 of Exh.1
14. Email on p.13 of Exh. 1
15. Email on p.14 of Exh. 1
16. Email on p.14 on Exh.1
17. Email on p.15 of Exh.1
18. Email on p.17 of Exh.1
19. Email on p.21 of Exh.1
20. Email on p.24 of Exh.1
21. Email on p.24 of Exh.1
22. Email on p.61 of Exh.1
23. Exh. 3
24. Exh.3
25. Exh.8
26. Exh. 9
27. Exh. 26
28. Exh. 11
29. Exh. 37
30. Exh. 28
31. Email on p.1 of Exh.1
32. Exhibits. 6 and 25
33. Exhibits. 3 and 26
34. Email on p.9 of Exh.1
35. Email on p.5 of Exh.1
36. Exh. 21
37. Exhibits 10 and 11
38. 2CPD. 416
39. [1934] 2KB 394
40. Exhs. 10 and 11
41. Email Exh.1 p.15
42. Email in Exh.1 p.15
43. Exh. 1 pp.55 and 61
44. Exh. 39
45. Exh. 41

High Court of Solomon Islands

Olsson v Solomon Time Ltd [2009] SBHC 66; HCSI-CC 417 of 2006 (6 November 2009)