Moore v Republic of Vanuatu [2013] VUSC 126; Civil Case 30 of 2011 (16 August 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

Civil Case No. 30 of 2011
(Civil Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN:

AGNES MOORE
Claimant

AND:

REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
First Defendant

AND:

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION
Second Defendant

Coram: Mr. Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Counsel: Mr. George F. Boar for the Claimant
Mr. Fredrick Gilu for the First Defendant
No appearance by the Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 8th August 2013
Date of Decision: 16th August 2013

DECISION

1. When this matter was called on 8th August Mr. Boar –
   
   • (a) Sought direction orders in relation to the Assessment of Damages Report currently being carried out by the Valuer-General; and
     
   • (b) Sought taxation of his Bill of Costs filed on 15th February 2013.
     
2. Directions have been issued separately in relation to the first request.
   
3. On the taxation application Mr. Boar clarified to the Court that the original Bill of Costs was calculated on an indemnity basis, however on appeal the Court of Appeal had ordered that the Claimant (Agnes Moore) and the Second Defendant (Presbyterian Church Trust Association – PCTA) be entitled to their costs in both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal but only on the standard basis. The Bill of Costs under taxation relates only to Costs in the Supreme Court and not costs of the appeal.
   
4. Mr. Boar therefore urged the Court to simply divide total indemnity costs of VT1,420,000 by 2 in order to arrive at the total standard costs which is the sum of VT710,000. Mr. Boar argued further that disbursements of VT113,600 should be added to find the total costs to be VT823,600.
   
5. Mr. Boar argued that since the Bill of Costs was submitted to the State Law Office, there had been no response or objections to them. Counsel therefore submitted that appropriate orders should be issued and payments be ordered to be made on or before 16th August 2013.
   
6. Mr. Gilu informed the Court he did not have his File in hand and sought time to the afternoon in order to file responses. Counsel conceded that the State had failed and accepted that costs claimed are legal costs.
   
7. Mr. Gilu had filed response and objections on 14th August 2013. The Court has considered those submissions and objections.
   
8. I consider first the general submissions raised by the Solicitor General that there should not be any deviation from the rates established by the cases of Hurley v. Law Council [2000] VUCA 10 or Hudson & Sugden v. Holding Redlich CAC 5 of 2000.
   
9. Mr. Boar did clarify that pursuant to the Court of Appeal decision, the original bill based on indemnity basis had been divided into half to reflect the standard rate. The amount was therefore VT710,000 not including disbursements. There is therefore no deviation in Mr. Boar's bill of costs.
   
10. Second, the objections raised the Court makes the following rulings –
    
    • (a) 23/6/11 – Claim for 5 hours that only 3 ½ hours should be allowed is rejected. The case had a long history. It had complex issues of facts and law which warranted the time and money spent.
      
    • (b) 4/9/11 – Claim for 5 minutes for drafting of Allan's statement that it should be disallowed for reasons that it was not filed and served on State Law Office. The Court agrees. This claim is disallowed.
      
    • (c) 4/11/11 – Claim for 4 hours for drafting sworn statement of A. Moore that it is excessive and only 2-3 hours be allowed. Objection is overruled.
      
    • (d) 14/3/12 – Claimant for 4 hours to attend Court for Conference that it should be allowed for 30 minutes. Objection is taken but in the Court's opinion, an hour is realistic and will be allowed instead of 4 hours.
      
    • (e) 18/5/12 – For attending Court Conference for 4 hours – That it is excessive. The Court agrees and allows only 1 hour.
      
    • (f) 20/8/12 – For 4 hours of work done, that only 2 hours allowed. The Court disagrees and will maintain 4 hours.
      
    • (g) 2/9/12 – For 5 hours of research and submission, that only 3 hours should be allowed. The Court accepts but allows 4 hours instead 5 hours.
      
    • (h) 6/9/12 – For 2 hours of continuing research and drafting, that only 1 hour was appropriate. The Court disagrees and maintains the claim for 2 hours.
      
    • (i) 7/9/12 – For 4 hours of trial hearing, that it is excessive and that only 2 hours be allowed. The Court agrees and allows only 2 hours.
      
    • (j) 9/9/12 – For 3 hours of continuing research and drafting, that it was excessive. The Court disagrees and maintains 3 hours as appropriate.
      
11. The Court therefore makes the following taxations –
    

Date	Item	Time	Amount Claimed	Amount Allowed	Amount Disallowed
14/3/12 18/5/12 12/6/12 13/6/12 23/6/11 24/6/11 26/6/11 5/7/11 11/8/11 12/8/11 24/8/11 6/9/11 17/9/11 27/9/11 4/10/11 14/10/11 4/11/11 14/12/12 29/12/12 12/3/12 13/3/12 18/3/12 9/5/12 13/7/12 23/7/12 3/8/12 4/8/12 9/8/12 20/8/12 31/8/12 2/9/12 6/9/12 7/9/12 9/9/12 8/9/12 6/2/13 Totals	1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.	4 hrs 4 hrs 30 mins 1 hr 5 hrs 2 hrs 1 hr 30 mins 30 mins 2 hrs 30 mins 20 mins 5 mins 15 mins 10 mins 1 hr 10 mins 4 hrs 10 mins 5 mins 10 mins 6 hrs 6 hrs 10 mins 6 hrs 15 mins 1 hr 1 hr 10 mins 4 hrs 3 hrs 5 hrs 2 hrs 4 hrs 3 hrs 1 hr 3 hrs	(VT) 40,000 40,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 2,600 500 2,500 1,000 10,000 1,000 40,000 1,000 500 1,000 60,000 60,000 1,000 60,000 2,500 10,000 10,000 1,000 40,000 30,000 50,000 20,000 40,000 30,000 10,000 30,000____ 724,600___	(VT) 10,000 40,000 5,000 10,000 40,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 2,600 Nil 2,500 1,000 10,000 1,000 40,000 1,000 500 1,000 10,000 30,000 1,000 20,000 2,500 10,000 10,000 1,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 10,000 30,000____ 534,100___	(VT) 30,000 Nil Nil Nil 10,000 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 500 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 50,000 30,000 Nil 40,000 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 10,000 Nil 20,000 Nil Nil Nil________ 190,500____

12. From the above calculations, the correct amount of costs claimed on the standard basis should be VT724,600. After taxation, the sum of VT190,500 are disallowed and the sum of VT534, 100 are allowed as reasonable party/party costs of the Claimant.
    
13. The total sums allowed are VT534, 100 plus VT133,600 making the overall total to be VT667,600.
    
14. The Claimant is therefore entitled to costs of VT667,700 against the First Defendant.
    
15. The First Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of VT667,700 being costs in the Supreme Court within 14 days from the date of this decision.
    

DATED at Luganville this 16th day of August 2013.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge