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

Kaoniferoa v Catholic Education Authority [2017] SBHC 65; HCSI-CC 436 of 2013 (25 May 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 436 of 2013

BETWEEN: THOMAS KAONIFEROA - Claimant

AND: CATHOLIC EDUCATION AUTHORITY - Defendant

Date of Hearing: 15^th May 2017.
Date of Ruling: 25^th May 2017.

Mr. M. Ipo for the Claimant/Applicant.
Mr. A. Rose for the Defendant/Respondent.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:

RULING ON AN APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Reasonable Delay

1. A re-instated 2013 claim, was served on the defendant on 24/2/2016. Throughout 2016, a lot of things have happened. Defendant had changed solicitor from Attorney General to current solicitor. It took some time for the Attorney General to finally hand over the file to current solicitor after May 2016. The defendant authority had a new Education Secretary. And then a new Bishop for the defendant church, in overall charge for the defendant, was installed towards end of 2016. All these had affected the defendant’s ability to file a defence. For instance with a new Bishop, parties had hoped for a settlement of this matter, towards end of 2016 and into 2017.
2. Then it seems that all hopes for a settlement had ceased as at 11/4/2017, Motions day. And so Counsel Rose’s submission that his client has had a high hope to settle this matter is not a lousy excuse. Although there was a long delay, the delay was reasonably explained, consistent with court records on attempts for settlement.

Meritorious Defence

3. Second is whether there is a meritorious defence. There is no draft defence before me, as would normally be the case. But from sworn statement, a meritorious defence could be deduced. Defence like the Long Service Benefit is an obligation of the Mother Ministry or that the amount claimed in outstanding salaries is disputed. And that a counter claim is also in the pipeline. These issues should be given time in court to be fully litigated. Should I grant default judgment, defendant will apply to set aside or will file a new claim against the claimant. These may likely to prolong this same dispute.

Nature of this claim

4. On whether, in view of the nature of this claim, court should grant default judgment or allow trial of the matter, I think the nature of this claim calls for a proper trial. On the issue of Long Service Benefit relief, for instance, whose obligation is it? Is it the defendant authority or the Mother Ministry?
5. Court orders are:-

5.1 Application for default judgment dismissed.

5.2 No order on cost.

5.3 The defendant is given Leave to file a defence out of time.

5.4 Defendant should file and serve its defence in 14 days; after date of Ruling.

THE COURT

---------------------------
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE