Hill v KPMG [2000] VUSC 54; Civil Case 105 of 1997 (18 October 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 105 of 1997<1997

BETWEEN:

NIGEL HILL

Plaintiff

ANpan>

KPMG

First Defendant

p class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> BILL HAWKES

>

Second Defendant

AND:

GEOFFREY ROBERT GEE

>

First Third Party

class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> AND:

REGENT LIMITED

Second Third Party

JUDGMENT ON

APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS

This was an application for security for costs by the First and Second Defendant to be paid by the Plaintiff for security for costs for the First and Second Defendant and including the First and Second Third Defendant.

I refused on the 17^th July 2000 uponapplication by First and Second third Defendant for the e Plaintiff to pay security for costs to them, and I cannot deviate from that Judgment as it has not been appealed.

In this case I grant to the Defendant for the Plaintiff to paurity for costs and adjournjourned for the counsels to arrive to an appropriate agreed amount which they fail to. The matter was brought before me on 16^th October 2000.

As stated above that on the 17^th of July 2000fused to grant to the First and Second Third Defendant security for cost to be paid by the plaintiff for the reasons being that the Plaintiff never intended to sue the First and Second Third Defendant. That proceeding was brought entirely by the first and second defendants against the First and second Third defendants. In this application, the Plaintiff can not be dragged into the case between the First, Second Defendant and the First Second Third Defendant. The order of the 17^th of July 2000 remains an order of this Court and this Court will only consider the memorandum of costs in line with that judgment.

In this case the First and Second Defendants jointly made out a memorandum cost tlude the First and Send Second Third Defendant proceeding. Pursuant to the Order of the 17^th July 2000 the Court will not include those costs for the First and Second Third Defendant. The court is only interested in the first and second defendants cost. The cost between the first, second defendant and the first and second third defendant is a matter between themselves and not to be imposed against the plaintiff within this proceeding. The court will always distinguish those cost between the Plaintiff and the first and second defendant to that of the first and second third defendant due to the order of the 17 6^th July 2000.

In this case it is obvious that the Plaintiff is not idence in this jurisdiction and there must be some gu guarantee within this jurisdiction that if he happens to loose the case than the wining party can be able to get his cost if the plaintiff is ordered to pay cost.

The Plaintiff hasn a memorandum of costs for this Court to consider to be the appropriate costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the First and Second Defendant as security for costs. I consider that what the plaintiffs counsel has arrived at, that is VT 942,750 was an appropriate out line of estimate cost. As cost is discretionary the amount in my view would represent a just cost to be paid by the plaintiff as security for cost. In this finding the parties are to arrange amongst themselves how such money shall be safely kept and to inform the court of such arrange for court records.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Dated at Port Vila, this 18^th day of Octobectober 2000

R. Marum J