Temotu Pele Shipping Line Ltd v Pele Shipping Company Ltd [2016] SBHC 89; HCSI-CC 65 of 2015 (8 June 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTIONS

Civil Case No. 65 of 2015

BETWEEN: TEMOTU PELE SHIPPING LINE LIMITED - Claimant

AND: PELE SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED - First Defendant

AND: SEGEO SHIPPING SERVICES LIMITED - Second Defendant

AND: ATTORNEY-GENERAL - Third Defendant
(Representing Director of Marine/SIMSA)

Date of Hearing: 30^th May 2016.
Date of Ruling: 8^th June 2016.

Mr. M. Tagini for the Claimant.
Mr. D. Nimepo for the First Defendant.
No appearances for the Second and Third Defendants.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:

RULING ON AN URGENT APPLICATION FOR RESTRAINING ORDERS

1. Today, I am supposed to be hearing two applications. The first by the claimant, filed 04/3/2015, is for urgent restraining orders. The second by the second defendant, filed 05/10/2015, is for dismissal of this claim.
   
2. Second defendant or its counsel is not in Court, without prior notice. I therefore ordered that the second defendant’s application be struck out for want of prosecution with no orders on costs.
   
3. I proceeded to hear the claimant’s urgent application for injunction. On perusal of the materials before me, I will decline to grant the specific orders sought in the claimant’s application. I will instead, in the interest of justice make alternative orders.
   
4. I made the orders below in the interest of all parties. If the ship is restraint, it is not good for the ship. We do not know how long it will take to conclude this case. It is of interest to all parties that the ship is in good working condition. If the ship’s engine is not steaming, it is not good for the ship. While ownership is contested, the ship must be kept steaming, to avoid damage to the engine from stalling of the ship over a long period of time. But the financial gains must be restraint.
   
5. Accordingly the Court make the following orders, under relief sought in paragraph 4 of the claimant’s urgent application:-
   
   • 5.1 Second defendant is to continue operating the ship M.V. Sunrise or whatever name the ship is now called under the second defendant company.
     
   • 5.2 Second defendant to produce quarterly financial reports on the ship’s operation to the claimant and the first defendant, via their solicitors.
     
   • 5.3 Second defendant to pay all “surplus money”^[1] after each trip into a joint trust account to be opened in the solicitors names, on a monthly basis.
     
   • 5.4 Parties to meet their own costs in relation to this application.
     
   • 5.5 Parties to prepare this matter for trial with speed.
     
   • 5.6 Second defendant’s application filed 5/10/2015 is struck out, with no order on cost.
     

THE COURT

----------------------------------
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

---

^[1] Surplus money means money the ship earns from each trip, after deductions are made in respect of operational costs for each trip.