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

  Download original PDF

Brenett v Government [2004] VUSC 135; Civil Case 02 of 2003 (15 April 2004)

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

Civil Case No.2 of 2003

BETWEEN

SOLOMON BRENETT
Claimant

AND

THE GOVERNMENT
First Defendant

AND

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Second Defendant

Coram: Mr. Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Counsel: Mr. Richard Kalses for the Claimant

Mr. Michael Edwards and Mr. Abel Kalmet for the Defendants

Date: 30^th March, 2004.

JUDGMENT

This was a Chambers hearing. Mr. Kases had submitted a memorandum of costs claiming-

These costs were charged at the usual rate of VT10.000 per hour.

Mr. Edwards objected and made application to have the costs taxed at the rate charged in the Magistrate's Court on the High Scale rate. He argued and submitted that in view of the awards made in the case of Silas Michelle & others v. The Government and Commissioner of Police where the Court awarded each plaintiff damages ranging from VT20.000 to VT500.000, Counsel should have foreseen that future awards could not exceed that amount and therefore should have taken out the Plaintiff's claims in the Magistrate's Court, rather than in the Supreme Court. Mr Edwards persuaded me to agree to his arguments and submissions. Counsels are officers of the Court. They have a duty both to the Court and to their clients to act in accordance with the overriding objective of the Rules of Court. See Part 1.2 and 1.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules No. 49 of 2002.

Mr Edwards relied on the case of Public Service Commission v. Raymond Manuace Civil Appeal Case No. 23 of 2003 (unreported) to support his submissions.

Mr Edwards therefore offered to settle all costs in the sum of VT94.000. Mr Kalses was in no position to accept this offer and he requested time to consider the matter and consult with Mr Edwards. In the circumstances the offer will remain open and parties are at liberty to apply to the Court in the event that the matter cannot be resolved.

PUBLISHED at Luganville this 15^th day of April, 2004.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge