PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2009 >> [2009] VUSC 61

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF


Santo Kava Company Ltd v Anderson [2009] VUSC 61; Civil Case 48 of 2008 (2 March 2009)

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


Civil Case No. 48 of 2008


BETWEEN:


SANTO KAVA COMPANY LIMITED
(Claimant)


AND:


KEVIN ANDERSON & OTHERS
(Defendants)


Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak


No Appearance by the Claimant
Mr Stephen Joel for the Defendant


ORDER


1. This matter is returnable today by Order of 21st November 2008.


2. The Claimant was directed to file and serve an Amended Claim and sworn statements within 28 days. The Claimant has not complied although Mrs Vire was acting for them at the time until 18th February 2009 when she filed a Notice to Cease Acting.


3. There is no reason why the Claimant should not be in attendance today when they were present on 21st November 2008.


4. Mr Joel seeks the possibility of a strike out of the Claimant's case.


5. Under Rule 9.10(3)(b) the Court has discretion to strike out a proceeding where the Claimant does not appear, and where the Claimant has not taken any steps in the proceeding for 3 months.


6. Further, under Rule 6.8(2) the Court has discretion to strike out the Claimant's claims if he or his lawyer has failed to comply with an order made at a conference.


7. It is clear the Claimant has not complied with orders of 21st November 2008.


8. It is also clear the Claimant has a result of his failure or non-compliance, taken no steps in this proceeding for 3 months to advance his case.


9. Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion under the above provisions to strike out the Claimant's proceeding in its entirety.


10. It is further ordered that all previous orders made pursuant to and in the course of this proceeding are hereby vacated.


11. The Claimant has put the Defendant to costs. It is ordered that the Defendant be entitled to those costs of and incidental to this proceeding to be agreed, or be determined by the Court.


DATED at Luganville this 2nd day of March 2009.


BY THE COURT


OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2009/61.html