|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Solomon Islands |
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Case No. 234 of 1996
GEORGE MENONI AND OTHERS
(AS REPRESENTING THE CREWS OF SEITOKU MARU NO. 8)v
SOLOMON TAIYO LIMITED
AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
p>Befo>Before: Lungole-Awich J
Hearing: 23 August 1996-Ruling: 23 August 1996
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT
AWICH J.:
The application of the Attorney General succeeds with the variation that the claim of the plaintiffs against the Second Defendant, the Commissioner of Labour discloses no cause of action. Learned Counsel, Mr Ashley conceded that liability of the Commissioner has not been stated in any of the paragraphs of statement of claim. Indeed the only clues are that the Attorney General is cited on behalf of the Commissioner and the prayer for reliefs states that the reliefs are sought against both defendants. Prayers for reliefs alone do not disclose cause of action. The plaintiffs have not sought amendments so as to bring in liability and I see none to alter the position. For now I have no good reason to suppose that joinder of the Commissioner in terms of Order 17 r 11 and 12 will be of use. That may be the case later, but the plaintiff has to make it apparent that the time will come. There must be causes against each party to be joined by authority of Order 17. The citing of the Commissioner in the case now does not help disclose a cause of action against him. The statement of claim in as far as it relates to the Attorney General representing the Commissioner of Labour is struck out under Order 27 r 4, and the case of the Plaintiffs against him is dismissed. Counsel for Attorney General has not asked for costs in its application nor in his submission. No order as to costs is made.
Application for Injunction (requiring payment):
Application of the First Defendant for adjournment is refused. There is certainly a serious issue and with prospects to succeed, but the interlocutory order sought defeats the trial of the matter. The plaintiffs seek to have damages paid to them in advance of trial and seek order to spend that money. That in effect is seeking order to levy execution before judgment is obtained. Further it does appear to me that the plaintiffs ought to have expected some resistance from the Second Defendant to pay for their accommodations and meals beyond 31 July 1996. Even if that may be a breach of contract of employment, and even if the Second Defendant were to be found liable to pay the expenses, the plaintiffs should have taken steps that might help not to aggravate damages, and should have removed themselves from the motel. Their application is dismissed. No order as to costs. This is only an interlocutory judgment and should not be understood to mean that plaintiff will not succeed in their case. It means that they must wait until the full determination of the case, and if they succeed they may of course ask for damages including their expenses for accommodation and meals. This judgment must not be taken to authorise further stay of the plaintiffs in the motel if they do not intend paying for.
Dated at Honiara this 23 day of August 1996.
Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge.
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1996/42.html