Liua's Trading Co v Galo [2020] SBHC 94; HCSI-CC 256 of 2018 (29 October 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Liua’s Trading Co. v Galo
Citation:
Date of decision:	29 October 2020
Parties:	Liua’s Trading Company v Job Galo
Date of hearing:
Court file number(s):	256 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:	High Court of Solomon Islands, Honiara
Judge(s):	Faukona; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Order that $5,000.00 agreed upon as being costs for vacating this hearing of the application be paid by the Defendant on 29/10/2020.
Representation:	Mr. W. Rano for Claimant Mr. N. Sariki for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Coram: (Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 256 of 2018

BETWEEN

LIUA”S TRADING COMPANY
Claimant

AND:

JOB GALO
Defendant

Date of Judgment: 29 October 2020

Mr. W. Rano for Claimant
Mr. N. Sariki for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Faukona PJ: After giving oral judgment in court I now reduce it into writing.

2. Complying with the conditions propose is one thing. The fact is that the Counsel has failed to appear in court, only to send a junior counsel with intention to adjourn the hearing, based on the ground that the principal Counsel was sick. However there is no evidence to proof as sick report from a qualified Doctor.
3. As to costs which appear to have been agreed upon as one the conditions can be relevantly paid for attempting to vacate their hearing for no good reason.
4. I that instance I must enter judgment against the Defendant without accepting or barring any application to set aside this judgment order. This is a final judgment in its own nature.
5. The reasons are two-folds. Firstly, that this hearing is in the nature of inter-parte hearing in the presence of both counsels. Secondly, that on 11/6/ 2020, the Counsel for the Defendant who attends Court had agreed to respond to the Claimant’s application for default judgment. Until now there is no respond to the Claimant’s application filed. Even if the Counsel responsible attended he will rely on nothing.
6. If the Defendant wishes to challenge this decision he should appeal but not to file an application to set aside.
7. Order that $5,000.00 agreed upon as being costs for vacating this hearing of the application be paid by the Defendant on 29/10/2020.

The Court.