South Pacific Oil Ltd v GRP Associates Ltd [2011] SBHC 146; HCSI-CC 223 of 2010 (29 November 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS.
(Faukona J).

Civil Case No. 223 of 2010.

BETWEEN:

SOUTH PACIFIC OIL LIMITED
First Claimant

AND:

SOLOMON ISLANDS NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
Second Claimant

AND:

GRP ASSOCIATES LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

MICHAEL EDWARD HEMMER
Second Defendant

AND:

GRACE RAY HEMMER
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 29th November, 2011.

Date of Ruling: 29th November, 2011.

For the Claimants: Mr R. Kingmele
For the Defendant: Mr N. Maikin and Mr A. Radcliffe.

Ruling.

Faukona J: This is an oral application put on notice by e-mail to Rodney Kingmele of Sol-Law on 25th November, 2011. The application is made by Mr Maikin who is in the country for this particular case alone.

2. The application is basically for the Court to give guidance to allow Sol-Law to elect whether to continue to act for the Claimants in this case, if so, the issue related to LC Alcol be abandoned; or to withdraw acting for the Claimants altogether and allow another law firm to take up the responsibility.

3. The application is supported by the sworn statement of Mr John Berverly filed on 26th October 2011, which is not challenged and paragraphs 76 to 89 of the Defendant written submissions filed on 25th November 2011.

4. Attach to the written submissions are exchange of correspondences between Mr Radcliffe and Mr McGuire in relation to this very issue. Ultimately Mr McGuire per his letter dated 19th October 2011, last paragraph agree to consider upon considering their advice on evidence.

5. Mr Kingmele raises the issue that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and make determination on the application because Rule 7.4 has not been complied with. He further states reinforcing Mr McGure's suggestion but this time with a time line; that they would consider the issue after this Court rules on the applications.

6. Rule 7.4 provides for application for interlocutory orders, and must be made by filing written application. Whilst undoubtedly, that is a proviso, the Rule also provides for exception in the use of the words "if practicable". In my humble view the exception provides for oral application be made. In this case oral application is supported by one sworn statement pursuant to Rule 7.5 (b). That is good enough and I accept it as proper and within bounds of the Rule. Mr Maikin is here only for this particular case. A circumstance required oral application is relevant.

7. The risk here as Mr Maikin submits, that there is likelihood that partners of Sol-Law be called as witnesses because they were instructed to transfer the LC Alcol at the time of the charter party. And perhaps will also give evidence on the issue of delay and reasons for it. Mr Maikin refers to the case of SMM Solomons Limited V Attorney General and Others (2007) HCC No 286 of 2007 (18th June 2008).

8. Mr Kingmele argue otherwise that the SMM case was brought to court complying with Rule 7.4. My view in regard to Rule 7.4 has been expressed in paragraph 6 above.

9. Having said that, there is sufficient material to belief that there could have been a conflict of interest which require guidance from Rules 16(14),(15) and (16) of the Legal Practitioners (Professional Conduct) Rules made under Legal Practitioners Act. Therefore I must grant the application.

Orders.

1. Guidance is hereby given to allow Sol-Law to consult with Claimants whether to delete or abandoned paragraphs related to LC Alco.

2. Or whether Sol-Law could withdraw acting for the Claimants in this case.

3. Cost as reserve.

The Court.