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

Bintan Mining (SI) Ltd v Attorney General [2020] SBHC 52; HCSI-CC 229 of 2020 (9 June 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 22 of 2020

BETWEEN

BINTAN MINING SI LIMITED
Claimant

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL
First Defendant

AND:

WORLD LINK RESOURCES LIMITED
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 29 May 2020
Date of Decision: 9 June 2020

W. Togamae for Claimant
D. Damilea for First Defendant
L. Kwaiga for Second Defendant

HEARING

On 29 May 2020 orders were made dismissing the claim following an inter partes hearing.
The issue concerned stock piles of bauxite in an area of land that had been mined by a company known as Asia Pacific.
The mining lease over the subject land was terminated but only after the stock piles had been created.
A new lease was then granted to the Claimant.
The Claimant then sought to restrain the 2^nd Defendant from entering the land or removing the stock pile of minerals.
Matters in dispute between the Claimant and the 2^nd Defendant are the subject of other proceedings and are not the subject of this claim.
At issue is whether the Claimant in those proceedings has an arguable case for the relief it seeks.
The Claimant seeks to dispute whether export permits have been duly issued to allow the bauxite to be exported.
In so far as the Claimant alleges the presence of the stockpiles on its land was a trespass that is cured by the removal thereof for export. The Claimant does not assert, nor could it, any proprietary interest in the bauxite.
It follows that the Claimant has no standing to argue that the bauxite should not be exported. The Crown has granted permits for that to happen.
The 2^nd defendant might or might not have any claim to it but it is apparent that the claimant does not.
Indeed the Claimant is advantaged by the removal from its leasehold area of the bauxite.
The claimant, after those orders were pronounced, asked for the decision to be reduced to writing giving the reasons therefor. These are those reasons.
The claim stands dismissed with costs to the 2^nd Defendant.

THE COURT
Justice Terence Higgins
PUISNE JUDGE