Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Reuben v Vanuatu Commodities Marketing Board [2003] VUSC 35; Civil Case 121 of 2001 (1 July 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 121 of 2001.

BETWEEN:

BROWNEY REUBEN
Plaintiff

AND:

VANUATU COMMODITIES MARKETING BOARD
Defendant

QUANTUM

The plaintiff was successful in his claim. I now fix the figures for the judgment sum. I have all the trial papers, the sworn statement of the plaintiff filed on 15^th May and his memorandum filed on 23^rd May. I have heard the argument of the parties. I will deal with each item in turn according to the memorandum.

1. Balance of Term of Contract
   

Figure accepted. Award VT2,738,029.

2. Severance
   

Figure accepted. Award VT801,972.

3. Allowances
   
   • (i) I find the figure of VT50,000 per months is reasonable for the motor vehicle. It is conceded the plaintiff kept the car for a month.
     

Award VT50,000 per month for 195 days.

(ii) VT15,000 is a reasonable figure for housing allowances. The time is accepted.

Award VT15,000 x 5.

(iii) Travel allowance is by reimbursement. There is no evidence of travel. The plaintiff concedes this.

Award Nil.

4. Sick leave

This is an unusual benefit payment. It is clear on its face. The plaintiff took no sick leave during the period of his employment. I therefore allow the full entitlement.

Award VT228,169 (balance in original enforcement order).

5. Annual leave
   

Award Nil (sum in original enforcement order).

6. Interest
   

Award Interest is awarded at the rate of 5% from date of termination to judgment.

7. Deduction
   

Car damage: VT41,766

House (one month): VT15,000

VT56,766

This figure should be deducted before interest is applied.

8. Clause 12 (3)/Section 56 (4)
   

The plaintiff foregoes the claim under clause 12 (3) on the basis of a multiplier of 3 or 4 under section 56 (4).

The defendant leaves this in the Court’s hands. This is a sensible approach given the time and cost the argument over such an award would incur.

Award Section 56 (4) award of four times severance pay.

9. Costs
   

The parties agree costs at the standard rate. They ask this Court to make an assessment. The plaintiff suggests VT1,000,000. The defendant suggests VT800,000.

I have had the conduct of this matter since an early stage. I find VT950,000 is a reasonable figure for costs. It is also proportionate to the sums involved.

Award VT950,000.

I will formally revoke the Enforcement Order made on 4^th March 2003. The plaintiff is required to draw up a draft Enforcement Order taking into account the above awards and including the sums from the revoked enforcement order.

If the parties cannot agree a payment period, this should be left blank and the Court will fix one. I bear in mind that no payment has been made under the Order of 4^th March. The defendants have known that more than that sum would be payable.

Dated at Port Vila, this 1^st day of July 2003.

R. J. COVENTRY
Judge.