HHD Development Ltd v Natei [2019] SBHC 28; HCSI-CC 189 of 2017 (12 April 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	HHD Development Ltd v Natei
Citation:
Date of decision:	12 April 2019
Parties:	HHD Development Limited v Patterson Natei, Henry Sau, Joe Martin Semi, Jack Opoto, Dick Vau, Wilson Tolengea, Matthew Natei, Hendry Teleu, Jimmy Ramo, Steve Melive, Steve Laore, Martin Moali, Mary Poniga, Florence Paniga, Simon Moli, Steven Oamola, Mathias Utupia
Date of hearing:	26 March 2019
Court file number(s):	CC 189 of 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Accordingly, the further amended claim is dismissed. Claimant to file a fresh claim, using the current case numbering. A pleadings too commerce anew. Cost against claimant on indemnity basis under Rule 24.12 (a), (c) and (d). Those cost to be paid by Mr. Rano personally in 28 days. Claimant to file and serve fresh claim in 21 days. Pleadings to close thereafter, in the normal time frames.
Representation:	Mr. W Rano for the Claimant Ms. M Bird for the Defendants,1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 and 17
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Civil Procedure Rule 2007
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 189 of 2017

HHD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Claimant

V

Patterson Natei
1^st Defendant

HENRY SAU
2^nd Defendant

JOE MARTIN SEMI
3^rd Defendant

JACK OPOTO
4^th Defendant

DICK VAU
5^th Defendant

WILSON TOLENGEA
6^th Defendant

MATTHEW NATEI
7^th Defendant

HENDRY TELEU
8^th Defendant

JIMMY RAMO
9^th Defendant

STEVE MELIVE
10^th Defendant

STEVE LAORE
11^th Defendant

MARTIN MOALI
12^th Defendant

MARY PONIGA
13^th Defendant

FLORENCE PANIGA
14^th Defendant

SIMON MOLI
15^th Defendant

STEVEN OAMOLA
16^th Defendant

MATHIAS UTUPIA
17^th Defendant

Date of Hearing: 26 March 2019
Date of Ruling: 12 April 2019

Mr. W Rano for the Claimant
Ms. M Bird for the Defendants, 1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 and 17

RULING ON APPLICATION TO DISMISS FURTHER AMENDED CLAIM

1. At the close of oral submissions, counsel Rano made various concessions, which made the outcome of the application evident. And so I gave 7 days for both counsel to file consent order, that will address the issues raised from the application and to agree the way forward. That was not pursued by counsel.
2. Counsel Rano conceded in oral submissions that leave was not formally granted to precede his client’s filing of “Further Amended Claim”. And counsel had assumed that counsel Bird will consent. Counsel Rano also submitted that defendants are entitled to cost of this application. And that his client is not taking issue with cost. An amended claim or further amended claim must be filed with leave of the court or consent of the other party - Rule 5.35. Mr. Rano conceded that he did not adhere to this. For the non- adherence, the “further amended claim” is dismissed. Claimant can file a fresh claim. And pleadings can start new.
3. Mr. Rano should have made the concessions early, when counsel Bird alerted him on the imperfections. There would be no need for today’s hearing. He has had ample time to make concessions outside of court. Yet he waited till hearing to make concessions. He will personally meet cost of this application.
4. Accordingly, the “further amended claim” is dismissed. Claimant to file a fresh claim, using the current case numbering. And pleadings to commence anew. Cost against claimant on indemnity basis under Rule 24.12 (a), (c) and (d). Those cost to be paid by Mr. Rano personally in 28 days. Claimant to file and serve fresh claim in 21 days. Pleadings to close thereafter, in the normal time frames.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN. A. KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE