Santa Cruz Timber Ltd v Pacific European Investment Ltd [2001] VUSC 83; Civil Case 026 of 2001 (31 July 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN:

SANTA CRUZ TIMBER LTD

First Plaintiff

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

LOUIS & LUTE BARBOU

Second Plaintiffs

<

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> PACIFIC EUROPEAN INVESTMENT LTD

First Defendant

AND:

p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom:ttom: 1">

JIMMY GIOVANI

Second Defendant

Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas

Counsels: Mr Saling N. Stephens for the Plaintiffs

Mr Daniel Yawha for the Defendants

Date of hearing: 31st July, 2001 at 9.35am

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT

By Summons (General Form) issued pursuant to O.57, R13 the Plaintiffs seek Orders for final judgment for th of VT 29,174,411 aga against the Defendants, and also claim an order for costs and other orders. The summons was filed on 25^th July, 2001.

The Plaintiffs rely on the affidavit of Mrs Lute Barbou which is taken as read.

class="MsoNormal" style="mae="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

Mr Yawha objects to the application for final judgment. e argnd submits that havt having filed a Memorandum of appe appearance on 11^th July, 2001 the Defendants have indicaufficiently that they intend to defend the suit. He further submits that the matter iter is subject to directions of the Court at a conference hearing whereby the Parties would attend and discuss the issues.

Mr Stephens argued that the Defendants should have filed their defences ony 25^th July, 2001. And having failed it is the right of the Plaintiffs to seek to have final judgment ent

clasoNormal"rmal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Whilst ilst what Mr Stephens submits is correct, pears that the Defendants were exercising a liberty that the Court had granted them on 6^th July, 2001 by filing their Summons on 20^th July, 2001 to have those orders vacated . And it appears that by pre-occupying themselves with that Application they had overlooked the need to file a defence on 25^th July. The Cour now heard and d dismissed their summons. In these circumstances it would be fair and proper to afford the Defenda further opportunity for them to file and serve their defence. And for these reasonsasons I dismiss the Plaintiff’s application. The Parties will pay their own costs. I however direct that the Defendants file and serve their defences and affidavits in support thereof within 14 days from the dareof.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom Dated at Luganville this 31^st day of July, 2001.

BY ORDER OF THE

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge