Yung Huang Fishery Company Ltd v Attorney General [2018] SBHC 56; HCSI-CC 460 of 2005 (1 May 2018)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Yung Huang Fishery Co Ltd v Attorney General
Citation:
Date of decision:	1 May 2018
Parties:	Yung Huang Fisheries Company Limited, Hwang Shu Fen, Kazuo Nagasawa v Attorney General Kazuo Ngasawa, Hwang Shu Fen, Yung Huang Fishery Company Limited, Daiwa Marine International, Solco Company Liminted, Daiwa Marine World, Yung Huang Marine, Solgreen Enterprises Limited, Yung Huang Fishery Company (SI) Limited, Solco Company Limited (Japan) v Attorney General, Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Yung Huang Fishery Company Limited.
Date of hearing:	6 February 2018
Court file number(s):	460 of 2005
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	11.1 Application to call Commissioner declined. 11.2 Cost in the cause. 11.3 Counsels to file consent order on closing submissions (written and oral).
Representation:	Ms. L. D. Ramo for the Claimants Mr. S. Banuve for the Defendants.
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Civil Procedure Rule 12.29. Rule 12. 29
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case 460 of 2005

YUNG HUANG FISHEREY COMPANY LIMITED
Claimant

HWANG SHU FEN
2^nd Claimant

KAZUO NAGASAWA
3^rd Claimant

v

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Defendant
(Representing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue)

Civil Case Number 101 of 2009

KAZUO NGASAWA
1^st Claimant

HWANG SHU FEN
2^nd Claimant

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
3^rd Claimant

DAIWA MARINE INTERNATIONAL
4^th Claimant

SOLCO COMPANY LIMITED
5^th Claimant

DAIWA MARINE WORLD
6^th Claimant

YUNG HUANG MARINE
7^th Claimant

SOLGREEN ENTERPRISES LIMITED
8^th Claimant

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY (SI) LIMITED
9^th Claimant

SOLCO COMPANY LIMITED (Japan)
10^th Claimant

v

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Defendant
(Representing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue)

Civil Case Number 505 of 2005

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Claimant

YUNG HUANG FISHERY COMPANY LIMITED
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 6^th of February 2018 (written submissions in).
Date of Ruling: 1^st of May 2018.

Ms. L. D. Ramo for the Claimants
Mr. S. Banuve for the Defendants.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:

RULING ON APPLICATION TO RE-OPEN EVIDENCE

1. Defendant closed its case. Ordinarily that would also close the evidence and bring to an end the hearing based on pleadings. In this instance, claimants after the closure of evidence, applied to re-open evidence. Claimants made the application under Rule 12.29. Rule 12. 29 states:-
   • “The Court may by order allow a party to re-open a proceeding if the court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order for substantial justice to be done.”
2. Making the application, the applicants sought leave to call Mr. Ronnie Piva, the commissioner of Inland Revenue at the material time (“the commissioner”). Applicants are of the view that Ronnie Piva’s name featured prominently on documents that were admitted as evidence at trial. Applicants named those documents at paragraph 5 of written submission, as follows:-
   1. Agreement for discharge of caveat without admission shown as Annexure A in the sworn statement (ss) by Kazuo Nagasawa;
   2. Notice of payment of taxes, dated 23/08/2005 issued to Yung Huang Fisheries Company Limited shown as Annexure B in the supporting ss of Kazuo Nagasawa;
   3. Notice of distraint dated 23 August 2005 issued to Yung Huang Fisheries Company Limited shown as Annexure C, in the supporting ss of Kazuo Nagasawa; and
   4. Notice of distraint dated 23/08/2005 issued to Solco Japan shown as Annexure D in the supporting ss of Kazuo Nagasawa.
3. Furthermore, the applicants submitted that the cross-examination of Raj Virman has revealed that the seizure of assets was done under the authority of commissioner Piva, being the substantive holder of the office of the commissioner at the relevant time.
4. On the principles of law argued, I should grant leave, if to do so will mean that substantial justice is achieved for the applicants. And one of the paramount considerations is whether in not allowing further evidence, substantial injustice will be caused to the applicants.
5. In this instance, the applicants have not shown that substantial injustice will be occasioned on their case, because they are not saying there are other additional and new evidences commissioner Piva must still produce that are relevant, but not yet before the court.
6. On the other hand, the applicants are saying evidences relevant and necessary on the actions of the commissioner, complaint about, in the claim, are already before the court. Applicants just want to call the commissioner to confirm the documents. And to confirm the actions taken because those actions complaint of were authorised by the commissioner.
7. The actions complaint of are confirmed in the documentary evidences, that the applicants referred to that I reproduce in paragraph 2 above. Those evidences are already admitted by the court. There is no need to confirm them again. The applicants will use those evidences to proof the actions/facts they complained of did take place. The Attorney did not object to the admission of those documents. The attorney is not denying the actions taken, that are complaint of. The applicants will argue that the actions taken and complaint about are not authorised by law. So really the applicant will benefit in their case before the court from use of the documents. On the other hand, the Attorney will argue that the actions taken were authorised by law.
8. The actions complained of are not private actions of Mr. Piva. The actions are public actions of the office of the commissioner. And those public actions are all documented. And all the documented actions are now before the court admitted as relevant evidence and ready for use in submissions by counsels in their case.
9. Those documented public actions are in relation to the commissioner’s distrain powers under the relevant statute. The distrain powers which, commissioner took on the claimant’s properties, which are now the main cause for argument in these proceedings.
10. In all that I say above, exercising my discretion, I am satisfied claimants/applicants case will not be prejudiced by the non-calling of the commissioner to give confirmation of the documentary evidences, now before the court for use by parties in their closing submissions. In other words, no substantial injustice or harm is caused to the claimants, in not calling the commissioner. All the relevant facts to bring fairness to the issues that counsels will argue on in closing submissions are now before the court.
11. Orders of the Court are:
    • 11.1 Application to call Commissioner declined.
    • 11.2 Cost in the cause.
    • 11.3 Counsels to file consent order on closing submissions (written and oral).
      

THE COURT

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