Pacific International Trust Company Ltd v Kazacos [2001] VUCA 9; Civil Appeal Case 12 of 2001 (24 October 2001)

IN THE COURT OF APOF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CIVIL APPEAL CASE No.12 of 2001span>

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL TRUST COMPANY ED

Appellant

Dr. M. KAZACOS
Respondent

Coram: Justice Bruce Robertson

Justice John von Doussa

Justice Daniel Fatiaki

Justice Roger Coventry

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Counsel: Mr. R. A. Parsons for the Appellant

Mr. G. Blake for the Respondent

Hearing date: 23 & 24 October 2001

Judgment date: 24 October 2001

JUDGMENT

There was listed before this sessiothe Court of Appeal an appeal and a cross-appeal agai against Orders made by the Chief Justice on 7 May 2001.

lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Times New Roman">The Court took the opportunity to y to discuss with counsel some fundamental problems which existed for each of them in this matter. We were concerned that in the determination of both the appeal and the cross-appeal no resolution was going to be achieved which would finally conclude all outstanding issues which existed between the parties. We stood the matter down for sensible commercial discussions to take place.

The were delighted eventually to learn that common sense and commercial utility had at l at last terminated all outstanding problems and that an accommodation had been reached which settled all outstanding litigation between these parties.

Once Orders were made in the Supreme Court by consent the appeal and cross-appeal were each withdrawn, all matters were brought to a conclusion with each party bearing their own costs.

At the final moment, an issue arose with therd to a sum which has been held in the Supreme Court Trust Fund since October 1998. The Order of the Court made at that time was:

e>

“1. That the defendant, PITCO shall pay into to the Supreme Court Trust Fund the amount of AUD$105,000 within 7 days as from today 7^th October 1998 failing which the status quo regime be automatically cancelled/vacated and the amount of AUD$105,000 be paid immediately to the plaintiff forthwith.”

AUD$105,000.00 was paid within the sated time to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Order. It It translated into a sum of 8,319,150 VT when it was banked.

e appears to have turned their minds as to how this money should be treated or dealt ealt with during what had now been a period of three years.

Clearly each party is concerned to the get the best of the circumstances which they now have discovered they have created. But the Court’s concern is simply with the proper legal position.

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Order requirpayment of AUD$105,000.00.

It is our view that the amount which the parties are entitled to receive back fromCourt was AUD$105,0005,000.00. The vagaries of the international money market means that the Australian dollar sum could today be acquired for approximately 7.917.000 VT.

As the Court held the money as trustee, it can not as matt law or principle receive aive any benefit. Therefore the parties to this litigation will be entitled to receive back the initial Vatu amount. It will mean that a substantial capital gain has been acquired on the initial AUD$105,000.00.

It should be noted however that if the position had been otherwise and the fluctuation had been in the opposite direction then the fact that the parties took no steps to protect how the money was being invested or the applicable terms would have meant that there could have been an equally substantial loss.

The legal profession generally needs to be ant to protect against these problems. They must ensu ensure ha that when monies are paid into a trust account, they are properly dealt with and all contingencies are provided for. Counsel cannot assume that the Court will be involved in pring the position unless thes the parties initiate necessary action.

The second issue is the question of interest. matter of law and principle a trustee is not entitleditled to obtain a benefit. If any interest has accrued on this money in the three years that has been in the Supreme Court Trust Fund then the parties to this litigation are entitled to receive it.

We direct the Registrar to have the Bank provide certification as to the interest rates which have applied from time to time on the relevant account. An amount equivalent to the net sum received is to be paid to the parties. The parties are not entitled to some theoretical interest rate which was not earned but to the interest which actually accrued.

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Further to the Orders which were made by the Chief Justice at the request of the parties, we accordingly now direct that forthwith 8,319,150 VT is to be paid to the respondent Dr. Kazacos and as soon as it can conveniently be arranged a further sum is to be paid to Dr. Kazacos which represents to the net interest which has been earned.

DATED at PORT-VILA, this 24^th DAY of OCTOBER, 2001

BY THE COURT

<

B. ROBERTSON J
J. OUSSA; J
J
D. F D. FATIAKI J
R. COVENTRY J

>

[About the School of Law] | [Courses Offered] | [Course Materials] | [Staff]
[Pacific Law Materials] | [Journal of South Pacific Law]
[Emalus Campus Library] | [Recommended Internet Links]
[Latest Additions][Search the Site]

© University of the South Pacific 1998-2002

If you have any comments, suggestions or difficulties with using this web site please email
Robynne Blake, Internet Project Manager, The School of Law, The University of the South Pacific or fax: [phone]

Last Update: Friday, November 16, 2001 08:51