St Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General [2017] SBHC 26; HCSI-CC 394 of 2014 (2 May 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 394 of 2014

BETWEEN: ST ENTERPRISES LIMITED Claimant

AND: ATTRONEY-GENERAL Defendant
(Representing the Ministry of Police and
National Security)

Date of Hearing: 17^th February 2017
Date of Decision: 2^nd May 2017

Mr F. Walenisia for the Claimant
Mrs M. Soma for the Defendant

DECISION ON CLAIM FOR INTEREST AND COSTS

Faukona PJ: An application claiming interest and costs was filed by the Claimant on 16^th February 2017. The relevant provisions are Rules 17.68 and 17.67 of the Court Rules 2007.

2.	The claim is basically for freight charges in the amount of $72,330.00. The freight charges were incurred for four occasions on 3rd November 2013, 7th November 2013, 11th November 2013 and 19th November 2013 when the Defendant shipped its cargoes on a boat own by the Claimant. There is no dispute as to consignments and freight charges.
3.	Requests for payment were made on a number of occasions. The first one was on 27th November 2013 and the last one was on 25th August 2014.
4.	As a result of no respond or acknowledgement made, the Claimant therefore filed this claim on or about 13th November 2014 and was served on the Defendant on the same day.
5.	On 21st November, as result of filing of this cause of action, the Defendant paid the Claimant by way of a cheque the sum of $72,330.00.
6.	The thrust of the Claimant’s claim was because of the delay in payment; it had affected the Claimant’s business, in terms of time taken to call in the office and inquired, and also affected the cash flow of the Claimant’s business for more than one year.
7.	I noted this Court has jurisdiction to order payment of costs and interest. According to Counsel for the Defendant the payment was raised on 15th January 2014 prior to filing of the claim. I noted exhibit “SMI” attached to sworn statement of Mr Maesiolo filed on 14th April 2016.
8.	Upon perusing of that document it reveals that the payment was not raised on 15th January 2014, the document the Counsel refers to is a requisition, a request for raising of the payment. It is merely a request for raising of a payment voucher. The payment voucher was actually raised on 17th January 2014 and the authorisation officer endorsed on 20th January 2014. The Claimant received the payment on 21st January 2014 eight (8) days after filing of this claim.
9.	I noted two requirements under Rule 17.76. In this case the principal amount is not contested. And that the Defendant had satisfied the Claimants claim by paying the amount claim after this proceeding had started. In fact the amount of $72,330.00 was paid to the Claimant a year after the service agreement had been completely done.
10.	The payment did not come easy, the Claimant had made numerous visits and requests for payment to no avail, and hence a period of 11 months and 25 days lapsed before the Claimant filed his claim on 13th November 2014. By delay of payment the Claimant had suffered cash flow problem and general running of his business.
11.	On the second issue under Rule 17.76, the payment of the principal amount manifested that the claim was consented to and the Claimant is therefore entitled to judgment if the Defendant had not satisfied the claim. In other words the principle amount in the claim was not disputed and the prospect of the Claimant being succeeded is eminent.
12.	The relief sought under this application is 5% percent interest per annum which conveniently falls under the requirement stipulated under Rule 17.68(4).
13.	Sensibility dictate that had the Defendant acted promptly by raising payment instantly after the Claimant first requested or demanded the claim would have not been filed.
14.	By evidence it had taken the Defendant from 27th November 2013, the date which the invoice was conveyed to the Defendant to 17th November 2017 when the payment was raised, was almost 11 months and twenty days to be exact.
15.	That delay was unreasonable by human standard and one which this Court cannot accept. By fulfilling the requirements under the rules, supported by evidence, the Claimant is entitled to receive interest on the principle amount he had received. He has agreed to the figure allowable by the rules which is 5% percent interest per annum.
16.	In so far as cost of this application is concerned I would exercise discretion to award costs to the Claimant. Base on the above reasons eluded to in particular unreasonable delay and the fact that the principle amount had been paid after the claim was filed and served. It is fair that the Claimant should be awarded costs as claimed in the relief.
	Orders:
	1.	Order that the Defendant pay interest of 5% ($3,616.50) on settlement payment of $72,330.00, Chargeable on annual basis.
	2.	Order that the Defendant pay costs of the Claimant in this case calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedures) Rules 2007.
	The Court.