Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Kuper v Secretary of the Cabinet [2017] SBHC 58; HCSI-CC 319 of 2016 (8 June 2017)

GEORGE ALFRED KUPER - V- SECRETARY OF THE
CABINET, ATTORNEY
GENERAL
(1^st, 2^nd Defendant)
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(BROWN J)
Civil Case No. 319 of 2016

Date of Hearing: 23 May 2017
Date of Judgment: 8 June 2017

Mr. W. Ghemu for claimant
Ms. L. Fineanganofo for defendant

Claim for moneys under employment contract

Brown J:

1. This claimant seeks damages for breach of an employment contract. The claim is for $ 1,464,854.03, being moneys made up by balance of entitlements under a contract of employment or Service Agreement following the disputed termination of the claimant.

On the 22 February 2016, the Secretary to the Cabinet by letter terminated the claimants’ employment, relying on clause 18.0 (d) of the Service Agreement.

“The employment of the Officer under this Agreement may be terminated on any of the following grounds-

(d) If the Officer or Employer gives a 3 months’ notice of the intention to repudiate this Agreement or payment in lieu of the notice”

2. The arguments and facts in this case are those raised and the same as Titili v Secretary to the Cabinet anor^[1]
   
3. My finding in this case reflects the reasons given in that other case. The circumstances of employment were the same, the Service Agreement corresponded with each other and the notice of termination relied on the same clause of the agreement. For while the claimant argues the 1^st defendant has renounced the contract, I find that the termination by letter was an effective notice pursuant to clause 18.0(d) of the agreement. I also find that payment of the total sum of $ 115,478.46 by the 1^st defendant was moneys due for the 3 months’ notice period provided for in the Service Contract clause 18.0(d) and evidence, not of renunciation but of acceptance by the Secretary of the fact of the contract. There has been no repudiation of the contract by the Secretary during performance enabling this claimant to bring any action.^[2]

The defence has been made out. There shall be judgment for the defendant.

The claimant shall pay the defendants costs.

__________________
BROWN J

^[1] HC CC.318 of 2016
^[2] Court v The Ambergate Railway Company [1851] EngR 510; (1851) 17 QB 127