HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON
ISLANDS
Civil Case No. 362 of 1995
KINHILL KRAMER (SI) LIMITED
v
High Court Of Solomon Islands
Before: Frank O. Kabui, J.
Civil Case No: 362 of 1995
Date of Hearing: 26th
November 2001
Date of Judgment: 04th
December 2001
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
No appearance of the Plaintiff
Mrs. M. Samuel for the
Defendant
ENT
(Kabui, J):
By Notice of Motion filed on 25th October 2001, the Defendant
seeks the following orders-
1. &nbssp; that ose cin s these pese proceedings be taxe taxed
2. &nnbsp;; bspts os be oaie paie paid
by the Defendant.
pan lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt">
At the hearing of this Summons,
the Plaintiff was not prein Court though a certificaificate of service filed
by the Defendant
showed that Mr. Stewart, the Manager of the Plaintiff, had
been served with the Notice of Hearing on 30th October 2001 at
his office at Point Cruz in Honiara.
The Facts
In a judgment I delivered on 6th
October 1999, I dismissed the Plaintiffs claim with costs. By letter dated
13th September 2000, Mr. Kwaiga, a Solicitor from Crystal
Lawyers, a firm of Barristers and Solicitors in town, demanded from the
Plaintiffs Solicitor payment of the sum of $16,915.00 being their client's
total cost in defending his case in Court.
This sum comprised $11,915.00
being cost of travelling expenses and $5,000.00 being the cost of work
rendered. There
was no itemisation of the items of costs. It was pointed out
in that letter that if the costs were not accepted, taxation would
follow.
No response has so far been received from the Plaintiff. In a faxed message
sent by Mr. Radclyffe, the Plaintiffs
former Solicitor, Mr. Radclyffe
informed the Registrar that he no longer acted for the Plaintiff. This faxed
message
was dated 22nd November 2001.
Order
68 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 196s 1964 (the High Court Rules).<
This is the authority
upon which fees are charged in respect of matters specified in Part Parts I, II
and III of Appendix
I to High Court Rules. Appendix I was later amended in
1975 and that is the present position regarding Court fees. Apart from
Order
65, which deals with the awarding of costs and Order 68 above, there are no
High Court Costs Rules as in England,
in this jurisdiction. This is a fairly
serious omission because it makes the life of legal practitioners difficult
in
that only some form of research would reveal the Supreme Court Costs
Rules that apply here. Having said that, I must qualify
it by saying that an
effort on the part of any legal practitioner can easily produce the required
result. This is a fact
of life that is brought about by being a former
Protectorate of the British, thus adopting the rules of common and equity
from England the Acts of the British Parliament of general application and
the rules made thereunder. The High Court Rules
are rules adopted and
applied here by virtue of the British Pacific Islanders Order in Council
1893. In this regard,
Order 71 of the High Court Rules is the guide where
there is a gap in the High Court Rules. The Order allows the Court to apply
the rules of procedure and practice in force for the time being in the High
Court of Justice in England as far as they
can be conveniently applied in
Solomon Islands. It is under this Order that I discovered Order 62 of the
Rules of the
Supreme Court 1965 published in The Supreme Court Practice
1995, Volume 1 at page 1042.
Procedure on Taxation under
rule 29 of Order 62
In this procedure, the party
wishing to tax costs byue of judgments, direction or order of the High
CourtCourt must begin
proceedings for taxation within 3 months after the
judgment, direction or order was entered, signed or perfected. If one party
fails to commence proceedings within 3 months specified, the other party
may do so with the leave of the
Court. If leave is granted, the other party will proceed as if he or she
were the person
entitled to begin taxation proceedings. Proceedings for
taxation are commenced by producing the requisite document, which in
our
case will be the judgment, direction or order of the Court to the Registrar
of the High Court. Order 62, rule 7 then
states,
��A
party who begins proceedior taxation must, at the sahe same time, lodge in
the appropriate office-
(a) &nb a
copy of the requisite document produced under
  &nbssp;&nnbp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp;
paragraph (5),
and
(b)
a statement containing the following particulars:-
(i)
>)
the
name of every party, and the capacity
in
which he is a party to
the
proceedings,
his
position on the record of the
proceedings which gave rise to the taxation proceedings and,
if
any costs to which taxation proceedings relate are to be
paid
out of a fund, the nature of his interest in the fund;
and
(ii)
the
address of any party to the proceedings who &nnsp;&
sp; span/
t">
conclusion of the proceedings which gave rise to the taxation
proceedings was acting in person and the name or firm and business
address, telephone number and office reference
of the solicitor of any
party who did not so acknowledge service or was not so acting in person
and also (if the
solicitor is the agent of another) the name or firm and
business address of his principal;
and
(c)
&nbssp;&nusp; s less less tess the taxing officer otherwise orders, a bill of costs
(i)
p; &nsp; in which the profess chargcharges and the disbursement are set out
in separate columns and each
column is cast, and
">
(ii)
& p; wsich iich is endo endorsed with the name, or firm and business address of the
solicitor whose bill it
is, and
1">
(iii)
& whp; which is signed by that solicitor or, if the costs are due to a firm,
by a partner of that firm;
and
(d)
&nnbsp;; nbsp;nbsp; unp; unless the taxing officer otherwise orders, the papers and vouchers
specified below in
the order mentioned-
(i)
&bsp; ;&nbpp; a bundmp comprising all cill civil legal aid certificates and amendments
thereto, notices of discharge
or revocation thereof and specific legal aid
authorities;
(ii)
& p; usless less the rehe relevant information is included in the judgment or order
or the parties have agreed
the timethe hgs, aificate of times
or a copy of the associate�s certificate;span><
/p>
(iii)
&nbbsp; a bundlbundle comprising oee notes of counsel and accounts for other
disbursements;
(iv)
&nsp; & onp;comp ete set of pleadpleadings arranged in chronological order, with
any interlocutory summonses and
lists of documents annexed to it;
class="Mss="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 144.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(v)
bsp;   caoes tnscouto advise with with his advice and opinions, and
instructions to counsel to settle documents
and briefs to counsel with
enclosures, arranged in chronological order;
(vi)
&nnbsp;; reportsports and oand opinions of medical and other experts arranged in
chronological order;
(vii)
&nbp; &nthe solicitor�s corresponespondence and attendance notes; and
(viii) any other ret vanersapuly duly bundled and
;
paan laN-GBaN-GB"e="foe="font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: -.2pt">
labelled...�
p>
Rule 30 then says that after the taxation proceedings have began, the Registrar will
notifyotify the party seeking taxation
and to any other party within 14 days
stating the day, time and place the hearing is to take place. Any party
whose 'costs
are to be taxed must within 7 days after the commencement of
the proceedings for taxation and receiving the notice of hearing
must send a
copy of his bill of costs to every other party who is to be heard on the
taxation and notify the Registrar
that he has carried out that obligation.
Any failure to carry out the
requirements of Order 62 does
not however nullify the taxation proceedings but may be treated merely as an
irregularity.
The Court is vested with the power to set aside either wholly
or in part the taxation proceedings or make such order as the
Court thinks
fit in dealing with irregularities if any under rule 30 above. Rule 31 deals
with provisional taxation whilst
rule 32 deals with short and urgent
taxations.
Extension of Time
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Rule 21 deals witension of
time. This rule empowers the Court to extend time in the interest of
justice. In this
case, the bill of costs was sent to the Solicitor for the
Plaintiff about a year after the judgment was delivered on 6th
October 1999. One may wonder why this case has suffered this long delay. No
one knows. One thing is however obvious I
think. None of the Solicitors in
Crystal Lawyers would have been expected to discover Order 62 above and
applied it in
this case. I will not penalize the Solicitors in Crystal
Lawyers for acting out of time. I would extend time for them to commence
proceedings for taxation under Order 62, rule 29 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court 1965 cited above. I would give them
30 days to commence proceedings
for taxation. I would also order that the bill of costs be itemised in the
usual way.
The order of this Court is that-
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
1. ; The Defendan �s
s
Soli Solicitor commence proceedings for taxation within 30 days from today;
&nb"> span><<
2. ;&nbssp;&nnbsp; bsp; The bihe bill of costs
be itemistemised;
3. ; Cost be cost in
n
taxa taxation.
&nbs>
O. Kabui
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2001/90.html
