You v Wong [2025] SBHC 85; HCSI-CC 29 of 2023 (4 July 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	You v Wong
Citation:
Date of decision:	4 July 2025
Parties:	Tony You v Billy Wong and Mrs Wong
Date of hearing:	7 November 2024
Court file number(s):	29 of 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	i) The Defendants were not in breach any rental agreement. ii) The Claimant’s claim for loss of rental is hereby dismissed. iii) The Claimant’s claim for damages per se is also dismissed. iv) The Defendants shall pay to the Claimant the sum of $16,992.00 as nominal damages. v) Upon the circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their own costs.
Representation:	Mr Lawrence Kwana for the Claimant Mr Lappy Hite for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Evidence Act S 31 (1) Land and Titles Act [cap 133] S 145
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 29 of 2023

BETWEEN:

TONY YOU
Claimant

AND:

BILLY WONG AND MRS WONG
Defendants

Date of Hearing: 7 November 2024
Date of Decision: 4 July 2025

Mr Lawrence Kwana for the Claimant
Mr Lappy Hite for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

Bird PJ:

1. Mr Tony You (Claimant) filed a money claim of $779,205.00 for unpaid rental and damages against Billy Wong and Mrs Wong (Defendants). The money claim arose out of a tenancy agreement between the parties in respect of the property contained in parcel number 192-010-161, Ranadi in Honiara.
2. The Claimant holds a Fixed Term Estate over the property. The Defendants were the persons who have entered into a tenancy agreement (TA) with him. The original TA covered the period from 1 July 2009 for two years. The Defendants have been on the property from thereon until about March 2021. The contested period of tenancy between the parties concerns the varied TA from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2021. There was no executed TA for the period of time.
3. The Claimant says that the agreed rent for the period was an amount of $32,000.00 monthly. In respect of the two properties on the land, he says the Defendants failed to pay rent from August 2020 to January 2021. They merely paid the sum of $28,500.00 monthly for the period. The difference that remained unpaid each month was $3,500.00. From that period of time, the Claimant claims $21,000.00.
4. The Claimant further claims unpaid rental from the Defendants from February 2021 to October 2022 totalling $672,000.00. The total claim of the Claimant is the sum of $693,000.00.
5. The Defendants position is that they have paid monthly rental of $32,000.00 for both buildings on the land from June 2017 to July 2019. From July 2019 onwards, there was no written agreement between the parties. They nonetheless continued to operate on mutual understanding in relation to the rental arrangement. From the $32,000.00, the amount of $28,000.00 was for the bigger house. The smaller house that their daughter was occupying was for $4,000.00 per month.
6. They say that their daughter who has been using the smaller house has travelled overseas for study. The smaller house was no longer required by them. The Defendants also say that on or about January 2021, they gave three (3) month notice to the Claimant of their intention to vacate the property. They vacated the property in about March 2021. They returned the keys of the property to one Mr Quincy Chan, the Claimant’s cousin and left the property.
7. After stating the background information, there are a number of issues that must be determined by the court. The issues are the following:-
   1. What governs the tenancy between the parties in the absence of a written tenancy agreement from 2019 to 2021?
   2. What is the agreed monthly rental from July 2019 to June 2021?
   3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages.
   4. Costs.
8. Before addressing the above issues, I will deal with the issue of Mr Wong’s sworn statement on pages 67 to 91 of the court book. The annexures to the sworn statement were not endorsed. Upon perusing and noting submissions from the respective parties, I can conclude that the annexures are admissible under section 31 (1) of the Evidence Act 2009.

Issue I - What governs the tenancy between the parties in the absence of a written tenancy agreement from 2019 to 2021?

9. From the respective positions of the Claimant and the Defendants, the tenancy period that is contentious between them is not governed by any written tenancy agreement. There is however no issue between them that in such instances, the provision of section 145 of the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133) applies.
10. Under that section, the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants is said to be one of a periodic tenancy. It does not have an end period. It can be determined by either party by giving the required notice. The notice period depends on how often rent is due and payable by a tenant.
11. In this proceeding, the evidence by the parties is that rent was payable by the Defendants to the Claimant on a monthly basis. It can therefore be determined by either party giving to each other one (1) month notice.
12. With the above provision, I can conclude that the tenancy arrangement between the parties from 1 July 2019 to June 2021, is governed by s. 145 of the LTA. It is a periodic tenancy which can be determined by either party giving to each other one-month notice.

Issue ii - What is the agreed monthly rental from July 2019 to June 2021?

13. There is no consensus on the monthly rental between the parties. The Claimant states the rental was $32,000.00 per month. The amount can be confirmed on the draft tenancy agreement on pages 23 of the court book. He further stated that the Defendants commenced to make payment of $32,000.00 from their ABC Store Limited - ANZ bank account from July 2019 to July 2020. From August 2020 to January 2021, the Defendants paid $28,500.00 per month. From February to June 2021, the Defendants did not pay any rent.
14. The payment of $32,000.00 monthly could be found on pages 27 to 33 of the court book. The further payment of $28,500.00 per month, with some variations is evident from pages 34 to 38 of the court book.
15. The Defendants say they initially paid $32,000.00 rental per month. The property consists of a warehouse and used as a factory and a dwelling house together with a smaller house that was occupied by their daughter. The monthly rental payment for the smaller house was $4,000.00. The balance was for rental for the warehouse.
16. The Defendants also say that in about August 2020, their daughter left for study in Australia. They gave notice to the Claimant that their daughter was no longer occupying the house and therefore no rental was required to be paid. From August 2020 to January 2021, they merely continued to pay rental for the warehouse/factory. They gave notice to the Claimant through his cousin that they will vacate the property. In March 2021, they vacated the same. From thereon, they no longer owe any unpaid rental to the Claimant.
17. In support of their contention, the Defendants referred to the unsigned tenancy agreement covering the contentious period on page 23 of the court book. The description of the property was P/N 192-010-161. The room number was Warehouse and houseup.
18. They say the description does not include the smaller building which was occupied by their daughter. They are therefore of the view that they were only required to pay rental for the warehouse and houseup which was a dwelling house.
19. They further stated that in about 2 February 2021, the Claimant approached them and informed them they were in arrears of two months on their rental obligation. The monthly rental was a figure of $28,500.00. For the two months, the total arrears was $57,000.00. The Defendants settled the arrears by two instalment payment of $46,000.00 and $11,000.00 respectively. See pages 70 and pages 84 to 86 of the court book.
20. Apart from the above discussions, I am able to find that there are two sets of TAs between the parties. One TA is for the warehouse and one was for the smaller house. I have come to that conclusion, having perused the TAs on pages 12 and 13 and 14 to 15 of the court book.
21. From the TA on pages 12 and 13, the description of the house was “house, W2 and room 3”. The monthly rental was $10,000.00 from July 2009 to June 2011. From July 2011 to June 2013, the rent was increased to $12,100.00. From July 2013 to June 2015, the rent was further increased to $13,310.00.
22. On pages 16 and 17 of the court book, the rent was further increased to $20,000.00 covering the period May 2013 to April 2015. From July 2015 to June 2019 on pages 18 to 19, another increase of $29,061.00 was made.
23. As for the TA on pages 14 and 15, the monthly rental was $3,000.00 also for a term of 2 years. I could see from the handwritten notes on page 15 that there was a rental increase for the house from July 2013 to June 2015 to $3,300.00. From the period between July 2015 to June 2017 was a further increase of $3,630.00. From July 2017 to June 2019 was another increase of $3,811.00 and finally from July 2019 to June 2021 was yet another increase to $4001.00.
24. The draft TA on pages 20 to 21, put the monthly rental figure at $32,000.00. That period of tenancy was to have covered the period between July 2019 to July 2021. This is the contested period. The Claimant says that the sum of $32,000.00 is the monthly rental for the whole property. The Defendants assert that the monthly rental for the two buildings was $28,500.00. They were not in occupation of the third building from about August 2020 to March 2021. They vacated the property in March 2021.
25. From the above discussion and the document marked “FS – 03” on pages 26 to 39, I am able to make further analyses in the following manner viz- From December 2019 to July 2020, the Defendants have paid to the Claimant, a monthly rental of $32,000.00. From August 2020 to January 2021, the Defendants have paid monthly rental of $28,500.00 to the Claimant.
26. The explanation of the reduction from $32,000.00 to $28,500.00 can be adduced from the sworn statements and oral evidence of Billy Wong, the first-named Defendant. His daughter who was occupying the smaller house left to do her studies in Australia in the month of August 2020. That house was no longer used by the Defendants. They have given notice to the Claimant of that circumstance.
27. From the evidence before me, the Claimant seemed to have accepted that position. It is obvious that from thereon, he has been receiving and accepted monthly rental at $28,500.00. The only issue raised by the Claimant on rental was a two months arrears of $57,000.00. It was settled by the Defendants by instalment payments. That issue was not raised by the Claimant in cross-examination. I can therefore accept it as a fact.
28. That brings into perspective the two TAs discussed above. From 2019 to 2021, the smaller house was let out by the Claimant to the Defendants for $4,001.00 per month. Apart from a minor error on the actual amount, Mr Wong confirmed that in his evidence. Since July 2011 that TA was never renewed. Notwithstanding, the notes on page 15 of the court book confirmed its continuity until June 2021. On page 14, the smaller house is described as houseup. On subsequent TAs covering June 2015 to July 2019, the description of the property was warehouse and houseup. It is therefore obvious that those TAs include the smaller house that was used by the Defendants’ daughter.
29. The original TA was executed on 22 June 2009, some 16 years back. It is possible that people forget things because of lapse of time. It is equally possible that the TA for the smaller house could have been forgotten about. Both parties and more especially the Claimant could have focused his mind on rental for the whole property. That must have caused some confusion. That view is supported by the Claimant’s oral evidence in court when he stated that the $32,000.00 monthly rental was for the whole property. He did not even mentioned the separate TA for the smaller house.
30. From the above information from both parties, I am able to extract the following:
    1. The total monthly rental for the whole property was $32,000.00;
    2. The monthly rental for the smaller house also referred to as houseup was $4,001.00;
    3. The Defendant’s daughter who was using the smaller house left for studies in Australia in about August 2020;
    4. Notice was given by the Defendants to the Claimant;
    5. The smaller house was no longer used by the Defendants;
    6. The Claimant through his conduct accepted the notice;
    7. The difference between $32,000.00 and $4,001.00 is $27,999.00;
    8. The monthly rental that should have been paid by the Defendants to the Claimant from August 2020 to March 2021 should be $27,999.00.
31. From my analyses of the evidence of the Claimant and Mr Wong discussed above, I hereby find that the monthly rental that should have been paid by the Defendants to the Claimant from July 2019 to July 2020 in respect of the warehouse and the houseup was $32,000.00. From August 2020 to March 2021, the monthly rental for the warehouse alone was an amount of $27,999.00.

Issue 3- Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages

32. In respect of my finding on issue 2 above, I can deduce the following:-
    1. From July 2019 to July 2020, the Defendants have paid monthly rental to the Claimant at $32,000.00. There is no issue for that period.
    2. From August 2020 to January 2021, the Defendants have paid the sum of $170,000.00 to the Claimant for rental excluding the smaller house.
    3. The Defendants also paid arrears of $57,000.00 to the Claimant. The amount of rental paid to the Claimant in respect of that period was a grand sum of $227,000.00.
    4. From the discussion in paragraph 30 above, the Defendants were only required to pay monthly rental of $27,999.00 to the Claimant from August 2020 to March 2021. They vacated the property in March 2021 which is a period of eight (8) months.
    5. So for the eight months, the Defendants should have only paid to the Claimant the value of $223,992.00.
33. As per paragraph 32 (iii), (iv) and (v) above, it is my considered view that the Defendants have overpaid the Claimant by $3,008.00. It will therefore follow that the Claimant is not entitled to make any claim for rent against the Defendants as particularised in paragraph 5 of his claim.
34. Lest it is forgotten, the tenancy agreement between these parties was a periodic tenancy pursuant to section 145 of the LTA. Under the section, the tenancy can be determined by either party by giving one month notice to each other. That requirement was satisfied in this case. The Defendants have given notice to the Claimant of their intention to vacate the property. By his conduct, the Claimant has accepted the fact that the Defendants have left the property in April 2021. In view of that position, the Claimant is not entitled in law to claim any rental arrears from thereon to June 2021.
35. In respect of the claim for damages in paragraph 6 of the Claimant’s claim on page 3 of the court book, very brief and unsubstantiated evidence was given by the Claimant on page 8, paragraphs 10 and 11 therein.
36. An assessment is contained in pages 41 to 55 of the court book. The assessment was prepared by FO Construction. No name was supplied except a signature. It is undated. It does not describe the property in any way. The documents contained summaries of alleged damages and photographs. In any event, it is merely an assessment. That aspect of it is confirmed by the Claimant at the bottom of page 8.
37. I have also noted that there was no receipt produced and disclosed by the Claimant to verify that actual repair was carried out by himself or FO Construction in the sum of $74,205.00. It is also noted that the property was rented to the Defendants since 2009. There is no documentary evidence produced to the court to confirm that repair works was carried out by him from 2009 until March 2021. With the assessment as read with the content of a ‘Clean Up Notice’ on page 91, it would show to me that the damages could be a combination of normal wear and tear as well as the Defendants’ negligence.
38. In their closing submission, the Defendants have raised an issue about admissibility of the assessment. They say it is not admissible under section 20 (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2009. They say it is not relevant because it does not prove or disprove damages. The reasons for their argument, is based upon the issues that I have raised above.
39. The Clamant had stated in cross-examination that the assessment was not meant to be used in court. From his own evidence together with the objection by the Defendants coupled with my above discussions, I will not accept the assessment as evidence in this proceeding.
40. According to the evidence adduced by the respective parties during trial, it is unclear to me which of the alleged damages were results of normal wear and tear and which ones were caused by the Defendants during the cause of the tenancy. With this combined effect, I am unable to find for the Claimant in the sum of $74,205.00 for damages.
41. In relation to paragraph 7 on page 3 and 4 of the court book, the Claimant says he incurred extra cost of $12,000.00 for conducting clean-ups around the property. Apart from stating the cost in his statement of case, the Claimant failed to provide and or produce receipts and documents to show that actual clean-ups was done on the property. Upon that basis, I am also unable to find for the Claimant. No documentary evidence was produced by him to verify the said cost.
42. In any event and having noted that the Defendants could have contributed to some form of damage on or to the property as discussed above, I would order nominal damages in favour of the Claimant. I have noted that the Defendants have been using the Claimant’s property for about 12 years. I also have regard to the notices by the Honiara City Council on pages 88, 89 and 91 of the court book. These notices were produced by the Defendants as evidence in this trial. They were not contested by the Claimant and I can accept them as evidence and I am entitled to make an order for nominal damages in favour of the Claimant.
43. I am only able to award nominal damages upon the basis that the Claimant has not produced any admissible evidence to prove his claim for damages. I hereby order nominal damages in favour of the Claimant in the sum of $20,000.00.
44. As per paragraph 33 above, the Defendants have overpaid the Claimant in rental by $3.008.00. Upon that basis, the Defendants shall pay to the Claimant the sum of $16,992.00 as nominal damages.

Orders of the court:

1. The Defendants were not in breach any rental agreement.
2. The Claimant’s claim for loss of rental is hereby dismissed.
3. The Claimant’s claim for damages per se is also dismissed.
4. The Defendants shall pay to the Claimant the sum of $16,992.00 as nominal damages.
5. Upon the circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their own costs.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge