In re the Bankruptcy of MG Meredith [2003] WSSC 29 (19 June 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

IN THE MATTER: of the Bankruptcy Ordinance 1908

AND:

IN THE MATTER: of the Bankruptcy of MUAGUTUTIA GEORGE MEREDITH,
Company Director of Matautu-uta near Apia, Samoa
APPELLANT

AND:

IN THE MATTER of the Petition of
Bankruptcy issued by BON PACIFIC TRADING LTD
a company having its registered office at Level 4, 149 Parnell Rise,
Parnell, Auckland, New Zealand, Exporter
RESPONDENT

Counsel: Mr T.K. Enari for Judgment Debtor
Ms S. Hazelman for Judgment Creditor

Hearing Date: 30 January 2003
Date of Decision: 30 August 2003
Reasons for Decision: 03 February 2003
Date of Ruling: 19 June 2003

RULING OF VAAI J

The appellant by Notice of Motion dated the 12^th March 2003 seeks leave of the court to appeal the decision of this court dated the 3^rd February 2003 and for a stay of execution of that decision on the grounds that the value of the matter in dispute is more than $400 and that the appellant has valid grounds for appeal as shown in the Notice of Appeal filed.

During the course of hearing counsel for the appellant also sought leave to amend the motion to include an order granting an extension of time to file. The amendment sought was necessitated by the fact Rule 18 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1961 provides:

"No appeal to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Court shall be brought after the expiration of 30 days from the time when the appellant first had notice thereof unless the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal shall enlarge the time for giving notice of appeal."

Counsel for the appellant explained to the Court that the written Reasons for the Decision dated the 3^rd February 2003 was not received by his office until the 10^th February 2003. I accept that explanation and as a consequence I rule that the Notice of Appeal filed on the 12^th March 2003 (not the 17^th March as alleged by the Respondent) was accordingly filed within the 30 days as required by the rules. There is therefore no need to grant an extension of time.

As to the merits of the appeal the appellant has once again repeated the same allegations and defences already dealt with. It is clear all along in this case and again in the Notice of Appeal that the appellant is relying on the breach of contract by the respondent for the wrongful supply of materials.

Judgment entered in the New Zealand District Court and registered here in Samoa was based on a written undertaking by the appellant and due notice of proceedings in both countries were served on the appellant who decided to do nothing until enforcement proceeding was initiated. The appellant however maintains his counsel was misled by counsel for the Respondent and that both actions filed in the New Zealand Courts and in the Samoan Courts are similar. The evidence cannot be subjected to any other interpretation other than the one arrived at.

For the reasons given the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal is refused. Appellant is ordered to pay Respondent’s costs of $200.00.

JUSTICE VAAI