IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 21 of 2005

BETWEEN:

PETER COLMAR
First Claimant

AND:

VALELE TRUST
Second Claimant

AND:

COLMAR FAMILY
Third Claimant

AND:

PETERSEN WALTER
and 15 Family Members
Defendants

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Mrs Anita Vinabit – Clerk

Counsel/Parties: Mr Peter Colmar on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Willie Kapalu for the Defendants

Date: 4th August 2005

ORAL JUDGMENT

The Claimants apply on an urgent basis seeking Orders that the Defendants, his agents and family members be restrained from –

1.	Speaking, communicating in any manner and going within 100 metres of Peter Colmar, his family members (the Colmar Family), and the employees and associates of Valele Trust until further Orders from the Court.

2.	Entering, touching, damaging or going within 100 metres of any property owned by Peter Colmar or Valele Trust including all offices, houses, vehicles, machinery, livestock and land until further orders of the Court.

3.	Assaulting, threatening and intimidating the Claimants and their employees in any manner.

The grounds relied upon were that on 4th May 2005 the Defendants were alleged to have threatened the First Claimant with force to arrest and abduction at their work place. There are no sworn statements by the Claimants supporting their allegations in compliance with the requirements of Rule 7.2 (4)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. This incident allegedly took place in May and Mr Colmar has indicated there has been no recurrences. This was confirmed by Mr Kapalu.

The Court agrees with Mr Kapalu that there is now no urgency necessitating that issuing of the Orders sought, and that there is no prejudice to the Claimants if no Orders are issued. The Court also agrees that this is a matter for the police and that there is nothing to suggest the Claimants had reported the matter.

The Orders sought by the Claimants are therefore refused.

It is sufficient that the Court reprimands Mr Petersen and warns him and his family members that he must not repeat his action, and that if he has anything against Mr Colmar or his family and his company the normal thing to do is to bring legal action against them. The Court reminds Mr Petersen that any repeat of his actions may find himself back in the Court or with the police. The Court suggests that perhaps Mr Peterson and his family members should reconcile with the Claimants in the usual Vanuatu way. But that is a matter entirely up to them and their Counsel.

The application of the Claimants is therefore dismissed. It follows also that the Supreme Court Claim of the Claimants must be dismissed as they seek no other relief than the orders sought in their application.

In the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.

DATED at Luganville this 4th day of August, 2005.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge