You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Solomon Islands >>
2016 >>
[2016] SBHC 47
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Yung Huang Fishery Company Ltd v Attorney General [2016] SBHC 47; HCSI-CC 460 of 2005 and 101 of 2009 (13 April 2016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Case No. 460 of 2005
BETWEEN:
YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
First Claimant
AND:
HWANG SHU FEN
Second Claimant
AND:
KAZUO NAGASAWA
Third Claimant
AND:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue)
Defendant
Civil Case No. 101 of 2009
BETWEEN:
KAZUO NAGASAWA
First Claimant
AND:
HWANG SHU FEN
Second Claimant
AND:
YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
Third Claimant
AND:
DAIWA MARINE INTERNATIONAL
Fourth Claimant
AND:
SOLCO COMPANY LIMITED
Fifth Claimant
AND:
DAIWA MARINE WORLD
Sixth Claimant
AND:
YUNG HUANG MARINE
Seventh Claimant
AND:
SOLGREEN ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Eighth Claimant
AND:
YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY (SI) LIMITED
Ninth Claimant
AND:
SOLCO COMPANY LIMITED (Japan)
Tenth Claimant
AND:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Defendant
(Representing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue)
Civil Case No. 505 of 2005
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Claimant/Counter
Defendant
AND:
YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
Defendant/Counter
Claimant
Date of Hearing: 5th April 2016.
Date of Ruling: 13th April 2016.
Mrs. L. Ramo for Claimants in CC: 101/2009; 460/2005 and Defendant in CC: 505/2005.
No appearance of the other parties in all consolidated cases.
KENIAPISIA; PJ:
RULING ON CHAPTER 15 CONFERENCE
- This case was initially filed under the old Civil Procedure Rules – being a 2005 case. Under the old Rules, claims for judicial
review can only be commenced, having obtained leave of the Court. Materials showed that leave was obtained 21/9/2005. And Notice
of Motion filed on the next day, 22/9/2005. And that this case has progressed in Court up until the coming into force of the new
Civil Procedure Rules in 2007. I am therefore satisfied that the filing of this judicial review claim complied with the old Rules.
- The case filed under the old Rules is still current, under the new Rules. The case has been in Court for over 10 years now.
- I must still consider the current case under the new Rules. In doing so, a Chapter 15 conference was conducted on 6/4/2016. I consider
the case against the four tests that this judicial review claim must pass under R. 15.3.18 in order to progress to trial.
- I can say that I am satisfied this case should pass the four tests mentioned in the Rule above.
- Firstly, that there is an arguable case – in that the Claimant is saying that the actions of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue
(CIR) was outside of the powers it has under Statute when the CIR distrain the claimant’s properties. This allegation alone
raised some questions fit to be tried. Hence an arguable case. At this stage the court is not concerned with whether the claim is
weak or strong.
- Second, the claimants are directly affected by this proceeding – materials showed that the claimants are the owners of the properties
that were distrain by the CIR, at the material time in 2005.
- Third is delay – there is no delay because materials showed that the act complained of was committed on 25/8/2005. Proceedings
under the old Rules commenced on 21/9/2005, only a month later. Under the new Rules, six months would be the time frame to measure
delay against.
- Lastly, I think there is no other remedy to resolve this matter. If there was – then 10 years was long time enough to have
resolved this matter outside of Court.
- I am therefore satisfied that this case meets the requirements of the new Rules. And that the matter should proceed to trial. Order
accordingly.
THE COURT
JOHN A. KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2016/47.html