N10438

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 235 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
JOANNE ARPA AND BEN ARPA
-Plaintiff-

AND
KEROWAGI DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
- Defendant-

Lae: Dowa J
2023:   11th & 17th August
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for default judgment-failing to meet the prerequisites of default judgment-relief not available-Court has discretion to consider and assess evidence to determine issue of liability. 
CONTRACT – Contract for supply of goods and services. Breach of procurement requirements under Public Finances (Management) Act- Contact void and unenforceable -  Effect of – Illegal, void ab initio contract – Unenforceable contract – Quantum meruit claim can be considered for actual performance. No hard and fast rule in determining quantum meruit based on innocence-each case to be determined on its own merits to do justice- considerations for appropriate and reasonable damages. 

Cases cited:
Magiten v Beggie (2005) N2880
Giru v Muta (2005) N2877
Maki v Dokup (2012) N4838
Bala Kitipa v Vincent Auali (1998) N1773
John Kunekene v Michael Rangsu (1999) N1917
Tiaga Bomson v Kerry Hart (2003) N2428
Eliakim Laki v Morris Alaluku (2000) N2001
Kunton v Junias (2006) SC929
Fly River Provincial Government v Pioneer Health Services Limited (2003) SC705
The State vs. Barclay Bros (PNG) Ltd (2004) N2507
Delphi Corporate Investigations Ltd vs. Bernard Kipit (2003) N2480
Leontine Ofoi v Kris Bongare (2007) N3248
Teine vs. University of Goroka (2019) SC1881
Steven Turik v Mathew Gubag (2013) N5132

Counsel:
T. Berem, for the Plaintiff
Nil Appearance

JUDGMENT

17th August 2023
            
1.	DOWA J:  	The Plaintiffs apply for default judgment under Order 12 Rule 32 of the National Court Rules for a liquidated sum of K503,682.

Facts

2.	The Plaintiffs carry on building construction works under their business name styled Steel Works Inc.  Between November 2017 and November 2021, the Plaintiffs were engaged by Kerowaghi District Development Authority, the Defendant, to carry on a series of building projects as well as supply of building materials.  The Plaintiffs issued invoices for the works, some of which were settled.  The Plaintiffs are now seeking recovery of the unpaid invoices totalling K503,682.00.  

      	Application

3.	The Plaintiffs, by Notice of Motion, seek default judgment pursuant to Order 12 Rule 32 of the National Court Rules.  The Plaintiffs rely on the affidavits of Terry Berem, Ekimbo Domai, and other affidavits filed in support of the application. The application was made ex parte after the Court was satisfied that the Defendant was served copies of the Notice of Motion and other supporting documents.

ISSUES

4.    The issues for consideration are:

a)	Whether the defendants have defaulted. 
b)	Whether judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs.

The law

5.	The Plaintiffs seek default judgment against the Defendant pursuant to Order 12 Rule 32 of the National Court Rules. Rule 32 reads: 
“32. General. (17/9)
(1) 	Whatever claims for relief are made by a plaintiff, where a defendant is in default, the Court may, on application by the plaintiff, direct the entry of such judgement against that defendant as the plaintiff appears to be entitled to on his writ of summons.
(2) 	Notwithstanding Sub-rule (1), the Court shall not, under that Sub-rule, direct the entry of judgement for the possession of land unless satisfied of the matters mentioned in Rule 30(2) and (4).”
6.	The law on applications for default judgment under Order 12 Rules 25, 27 and 32 of the National Court Rules is settled. The Court has a discretion whether to grant or not in the circumstances of each case. Refer: Magiten v Beggie (2005) N2880, Giru v Muta (2005) 2877, Maki v Dokup (2012) N4838, Bala Kitipa v Vincent Auali (1998) N1773, John Kunekene v Michael Rangsu (1999) N1917, Tiaga Bomson v Kerry Hart (2003) N2428, Eliakim Laki v Morris Alaluku (2000) N2001 and Kunton v Junias (2006) SC929. A study of the cases listed above show a wide range of considerations apply when exercising discretion which are:

1)	Whether the statement of claim raises serious allegations of fraud or deceit.
2)	The extent of default by the defendants.
3)	Whether the defendant appears to have a good defence.
4)	Whether the pleadings are vague, ie, where the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action,
5)	Whether the Plaintiff has prosecuted his case diligently
6)	Whether the entry of judgment would prejudice the rights of co-defendants
7)	Whether the interests of justice would be preserved by the entry of default judgment.

Whether the Defendant has defaulted.

7.	 In the present case, the Plaintiffs are claiming judgment for a liquidated sum of K503,682.00. This claim is for outstanding invoices for construction work as well as for building materials supplied at the request of the Defendant. 

8.	The first issue is whether the defendant defaulted. The evidence shows the original Writ of Summons was served on the Defendant on 31st March 2023 by Jackson Siune, a policeman attached to Kundiawa Police Station. Despite being served copies of the Writ of Summons, the defendant did not file its Notice of Intention to Defend nor a Defence.   The Defendant was also served copies of the Notice of Motion for default judgment, the supporting Affidavits, and an Order of this Court on 3rd August 2023. Again, the Defendant made no appearance in Court to defend the proceedings. Clearly the Defendant has defaulted.

       Whether the Plaintiffs should be granted default Judgment
9.	Should the Plaintiffs be granted default judgment. The Plaintiffs’ claim is based on outstanding invoices for the supply of goods and services based on a building and maintenance contract. It is a government contract. A brief perusal of the documents shows the procurement requirements of Public Finances (Management) (Amendment)Act 2018 were not complied with. I am not inclined to enter default judgment for the amount claimed at this stage and will proceed to consider the whole evidence to determine the issue of liability as well as quantum. 

Evidence

10.	The Plaintiffs rely on the Affidavit of Ekimbo Domai sworn 25th and filed 31st July 2023. Mr. Domai is the Managing Director of Steel Works Incorporated. 

11.	Steel Works was registered as a business name under the Business Names Act on 19th May 2015.  It is owned by the Plaintiffs, Joane Arpa, and Ben Arpa. They specialize in building construction works and the supply of building materials.  After the 2017 National General Elections, the Defendant’s Administration engaged Steel Works to undertake certain maintenance and upgrading projects at the Defendant’s District Administration, at Kerowagi, in the Simbu Province.  The contract agreement was open-ended and did not fix a value to it as there were various projects under the Defendant’s District Improvement Plan and Programs that were assigned to Steel Works to undertake.  

12.	Steel Works then undertook three (3) projects at the Defendant’s District Office as particularized below.

PROJECT NO	DESCRIPTION	VALUE (K)	STATUS	
1	Complete refurbishment of Kerowagi Police holding cells	K211,799.50	Project completed	
2	Extension of Kerowagi District administration complex	K225,134.50	Project completed	
3	Complete perimeter fencing of Kerowagi District headquarters	K406,747.00	Project completed	

13.	After initial assessment of the required works were carried out, the Plaintiffs then prepared costings/quotations and submitted them to the Defendant for payment to secure the needed materials and carry out the projects. For Project Nos.1 and 2, the Defendant paid invoices totaling K390,000.00 in three lots of payment.  The balance of K46,934.00 has not been paid to date.  For Project No. 3, Steel Works was paid only K150,000.00 on two installments [K100,000.00 and K50,000.00, respectively].  

14.	Then in November 2019, at the Defendant’s request, Steel Works supplied the materials for the construction of a Project Office at the District Headquarters. Based on the Defendant’s request, Steel Works supplied the materials at the total cost of K200,000.00 inclusive of labour and transport, under Invoice No. 19454. Steel Works then requested the Defendant’s administration to settle the total outstanding invoices of K503,682.00 without success.  On 17th November 2021, the Plaintiffs and responsible officers of the Defendant executed a Memorandum of Agreement for the payment of the outstanding debt. Again, no payment has been made.

15.  The Defendant did not give evidence in response.

Submissions of Parties

15.	Mr. Berem, counsel for the Plaintiffs, submits this is a liquidated sum for outstanding invoices, based on a general government contract and a Memorandum of Understanding. The Defendant has settled part of the debt and the current proceedings are for the balance of the debt. Counsel also submits that Defendant did not defend the proceedings and offered no evidence in rebuttal and therefore liability should not be an issue in the circumstances and that judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs for the entire claim.

17. 	When counsel was alerted to the fact that the contract relied on may be found to be illegal, Mr. Berem submitted that the Court can still make an award based on the principles of quantum meruit as the Plaintiffs have rendered services and supplied goods to the Defendant which are not disputed.

Consideration
Whether the Defendant is liable

18. I have considered the evidence and submissions of counsel and here is my     ruling on the issue.

19.  The evidence shows between November 2018 and November 2019 the Plaintiffs were engaged by the Defendant to do several projects. Apart from the construction and maintenance works, the Plaintiffs supplied building materials to the Defendant at its request for a substantial value. The total value for the works and goods supplied is for K 1,043,682.00. The Defendants paid K540,000.00 and the balance outstanding is K 503,682.00.

20. 	Although the outstanding debt is an aggregate sum of four individual invoices involving different projects, the contract amount is substantial. A contract for service of this magnitude would require proper procurement and execution process under the Public Finance (Management) Act. The Defendant, Kerowaghi District Development Authority, is established under the District Development Authority Act and has financial responsibility under the Act. Although the Defendant   operates as independent entity under the District Development Authority Act with a corporate structure, its officers are required to comply with the minimum procurement requirements and administrative guidelines and financial instructions of the Public Finance (Management)) Act. This is because they are state entities where the Public Finances (Management) Act applies.

21.	Section 24 of the District Development Authority Act 2014 provides that the Public Finance (Management) Act applies. It reads:

“24. APPLICATION OF PART VIII OF THE PUBLIC FINANCES (MANAGEMENT) ACT 1995.
Part VIII of the Public Finances (Management) Act 1995 applies to District Development Authorities.”
22.	Section 2A of the Claims by and Against the State Act provides prerequisites for a valid contract or claim against the State. It reads:
“2A.	 CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
	(1) In this section –
“Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure” an Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure issued under Section 47B of the Public Finances (Management) Act 1995;
“Integrated Local Purchase Order and Claim (ILPOC)” means Finance Form 4A – Integrated Local Purchase Order and Claim issued in accordance with the Finance Instructions under the Public Finances (Management) Act 1995.
(2) A claim for the price arising from the sale of property or stores or for the supply of goods or services to the State shall not be enforceable, through the courts or otherwise, unless the seller of the property or stores or the supplier of the goods or services produces –
(a) a properly authorized Integrated Local Purchase Order and Claim (ILPOC); or
(b) an Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure,
relating to the property or stores or goods or services, the subject of the claim, to the full amount of the claim.
(3) The provisions of this section apply to an alleged sale of property or stores or to an alleged supply of goods or services after 1 March 2003.”
23. 	Section 47B of the Public Finance (Management) Act 1995 is replaced by section 42 of the Public Finance (Management) (Amendment) Act 2018. Sections 44 and 45 of the Act are also relevant in determining the issues before the Court. 

24. 	Sections 42,44 and 45 of the Act are set out below:

“42. AUTHORITY TO PRE-COMMIT EXPENDITURE.

(1) The APC Committee may issue to a Departmental Head an Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure under this Act in relation to the procurement of goods, works or services where the APC Committee is satisfied that –

•	(a) in the case of proposed expenditure exceeding the threshold limit established by the National Procurement Act 2018 –

(i) 	the provisions of this part have been complied with in relation to the procurement; and
(ii) 	funds will be available to meet the proposed schedule of payments for the procurement; and

•	(b) in the case of proposed expenditure not exceeding the threshold limit established by the National Procurement Act 2018, the circumstances of the proposed expenditure are such that it is appropriate to authorise the Departmental Head to whom the Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure is to be issued, to enter into a contract for the procurement of goods, works or services notwithstanding that the full amount of funds to meet the payment required under the contract is not immediately available.

(2) An Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure under Subsection (1) shall specify –

•	(a) the procurement of goods, works or services to which it relates; and

•	(b) the maximum amount to which the Authority extends.

(3) An Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure under Subsection (1) authorises the Department, to whose Departmental Head the Authority was issued, to enter into a contract for the procurement of goods, works or services specified in the Authority to the extent of an amount not exceeding the maximum amount specified in the Authority and in any event not exceeding the threshold limit established by the National Procurement Act 2018 for that Department.

(4) An Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure under Subsection (1) authorises National Procurement Commission and such other bodies as are authorised by the National Procurement Act 2018 to enter into a contract for the procurement of goods, works or services specified in the Authority to the extent of an amount not exceeding the maximum amount specified in the Authority.

(5) An Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure under Subsection (1) shall not exceed the appropriation contained in the National Budget for the procurement of goods, works or services for the financial year in which the Authority was issued.

44.   CERTAIN CONTRACTS NULL AND VOID.

(1) In this section –

•	"Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure" means an Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure issued under Section 42;
•	"Integrated Local Purchase Order and Claim (ILPOC)" means an Integrated Local Purchase Order and Claim issued in accordance with the Financial Instructions.

(2) A contract for the purchase of property or stores or for the supply of goods or services entered into, or purported to have been entered into, by or on behalf of the State, in respect of which purchase or supply –

•	(a) in the case of proposed expenditure exceeding K100,000.00, the provisions of this part have not been complied with in relation to the purchase or supply; or

•	(b) in the case of proposed expenditure not exceeding KI 00,000.00, no Authority to Pre-Commit Expenditure has been granted or no Integrated Local. Purchase Order and Claim has been issued,

is of no legal effect.

(3) The provisions of this section apply in respect of contracts entered into, or purported to have been entered into, by or on behalf of the State, on or after 1 January 2003.

45. CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
(1) In this section -
•	"Integrated Local Purchase Order or Claim (ILPOC)" means an Integrated Local Purchase Order or Claim issued in accordance with a Financial Instruction.

(2) A claim for the price arising from the sale of property or stores or for the supply of goods or services to the State shall not be enforceable, through the courts or otherwise, unless the seller of the property or stores or the supplier of the goods or services produces -
•	(a) a properly authorised Integrated Local Purchase Order or Claim (ILPOC); or
•	(b) an Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure,

relating to the property or stores or goods or services, the subject of the claim, to the full amount of the claim.
(3) The provisions of this section apply where the property or stores were purportedly sold to the State or the goods or services were purportedly supplied to the State on or after 1 January 2003.".

25.   Although the defendant did not raise the issue of illegality of the contracts, the Court cannot ignore the flouting of the mandatory requirements of the Public Finances (Management) Act by those doing business with the government and those tasked with management of public funds. Although there is no evidence of whether the Plaintiffs were aware of the requirements of the Public Finance (Management) Act, section 45 of the Act shifts the onus of proof on the supplier of the goods or services to produce evidence of a properly authorized Integrated Local Purchase Order or Claim commonly known as ILPOC or an Authority to Pre-commit Expenditure. The Plaintiffs did not produce any evidence of the government ILPOC nor any evidence of Authority to pre-commit Expenditure. Mr. Domai who gave evidence for the Plaintiffs conceded that it was an open-ended contractual arrangement. 

26.	It is clear the Plaintiffs had a contractual arrangement with the Defendant for the provision of goods and services without following the procurement requirements under the Public Finance (Management) Act. The law is settled.  Where a contract is entered with the State or an Institution of the State for the supply of goods or services without complying with the mandatory requirements of the Public Finance (Management)) Act  is illegal and unenforceable: Refer: Fly River Provincial Government vs. Pioneer Health Services Limited (2003), SC705, The State v Barclay Bros (PNG) Ltd (2004) N2507, Delphi  Corporate Investigations Ltd vs. Bernard Kipit (2003) N2480 and Leontine Ofoi v Kris Bongare (2007) N3248, Ray v Numara (2018) N7380.

27. 	In the case Fly River Provincial Government vs. Pioneer Health Services Limited (2003) SC705, the Supreme Court stated the law at paragraphs 2 -5 of the headnotes of the judgment: 

“2.	The requirements under ss.59 and 61 of the PF(M)A are mandatory and where a contract is entered into in breach of those requirements, it is illegal and is therefore null, void and unenforceable.

3.	The requirements under the PF(M)A are to enable transparency in all public contracts and to safeguard against corruption and enable securing of fair contracts with public institutions and or bodies for the best services at a competitive or best price.

4.	A person dealing with the State or any of its arm or instrumentality or a public institution to which the Act applies, is bound to comply with the requirements of the Act and every person dealing with such institutions or bodies are deemed to be aware of these requirements.

5.	A failure to ensure compliance of the requirements of the Act operates to the detriment of the party contracting with the State or a public authority to which the Act applies.”

28.  The Plaintiffs had an ongoing business relation with the Defendant for the supply of building materials and general construction/maintenance works without complying with the mandatory requirements of the Public Finance (Management) Act. It was not open and transparent. The contract was signed without any project identification and no fixed pricing and ambiguous. Further, there is no evidence of whether the Officers who engaged the Plaintiffs had authority to pre-commit financial obligations on behalf of the Defendant.

29. 	For the foregoing reasons, I find the various supply of goods and service agreements entered between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs illegal and unenforceable pursuant to sections 42, 44 and 45 of the Public Finances (Management) (Amendment) Act 2018.

Should the Plaintiffs be left without remedy.

30.	Whilst the contract for services did not meet the contracting practices and statutory requirements of the Public Finances (Management) Act, there is evidence that the Plaintiffs did provide services to the Defendant. It is clear the Defendant has benefited from the services provided and goods supplied.  The Defendant has acknowledged its indebtedness to the Plaintiffs by making part payment. They have also signed a Memorandum of Agreement recently acknowledging the debt.  Besides, the Defendant has not denied the claim nor defended the proceedings. In the circumstances, the Plaintiffs should not be left without a remedy.  Although not pleaded, it is open to the Court to consider an award on quantum meruit to do justice in the circumstances of the case.

31. 	Quantum meruit is a common law cause of action. It has been applied in cases such as  Fly River Provincial Government v Pioneer Health Services Limited (2003) SC705, Teine v University of Goroka (2019) SC1881, The State v Barclay Bros (PNG) Ltd (2004) N2507, Delphi  Corporate Investigations Ltd v Bernard Kipit (2003) N2480 and Leontine Ofoi v Kris Bongare (2007) N3248 and Steven Turik v Mathew Gubag (2013) N5132.

32.  In Turik v Gubag, Cannings J set out the following elements of quantum meruit:

1.	‘A’ has done something of benefit for ‘B’.

2.	the thing done by ‘A’ relates to an arrangement of some sort with ‘B’ (the arrangement might be but is not necessarily a contract and might be an illegal contract).

3.		it would be unjust to allow ‘B’ to retain the benefit without some remuneration or reward for ‘A’.

33.	In the case Fly River Provincial Government vs. Pioneer Health Services Limited (2003) SC705, the Supreme Court said, in appropriate cases, the Court can make alternative awards based on quantum meruit.  A summary of the Supreme Court decision from the head notes states in the following: 

“6.	Where an illegal contract is part performed an action for recovery or restitution is available if not already paid for in equity to avoid unjust enrichment condition on the innocence of the contracting parties.

7.	In the present case, the contract between the Appellant and the Respondent is null and void for non-compliance of the public tender and Minister for Finance’s approval under the PF(M) A.

8.	However, since the contract was part performed and the Appellant received goods and service from the Respondent, in equity the Respondent is entitled to pursue its claim for a recovery of the costs and expenses it has incurred by way of restitution. But this is conditional on showing its innocence in the creation of the illegal contract.”

34.   	In Teine v University of Goroka (2019) SC1881, the Supreme Court clarified that the Supreme Court in Fly River Provincial Government did not lay down a hard-and -fast rule that all persons dealing with public institutions will be deemed to have knowledge of illegalities for lack of statutory compliances.  At paragraph 9 of the judgment the Court said:

” 9. We do not consider that the Supreme Court in Fly River v Pioneer laid down a hard-and-fast rule that all persons dealing with public institutions will be deemed to be aware of the public tender requirements of the Public Finances (Management) Act, so that in each and every instance of an illegal contract, the parties to the contract will be deemed to have knowledge of its illegality. The better view is that any dicta to that effect is confined to the facts of that particular case. It remains important that the evidence in each case be assessed on its merits. Though it might be appropriate to presume knowledge of illegalities, such a presumption can on a proper assessment of the evidence be rebutted. We consider that the trial judge erred by regarding dicta of the Supreme Court in the Fly River Provincial Government case about the parties being deemed to have knowledge of an illegality as a hard-and-fast rule and applying it against the appellants without adequate assessment of the evidence, leading to them being labelled without justification as ‘not innocent’.”
 
35.	In the present case, without repeating the evidence, suffice to say that the Plaintiffs provided goods and services at the request of the Defendant to which the Defendant benefited. Except that the Plaintiff’s services and supply of goods were rendered in breach of the procurement requirements of the PFMA and for that reason renders the contract void, and except for the Plaintiffs not being paid, the parties have otherwise acted on the terms of the contract. There is no evidence to conclude that the Plaintiffs had knowledge of lack of authority of the officers of the Defendant to contract and bind the Defendant. I am of the view that the Plaintiffs should be compensated, if not, grave injustice will be done to the Plaintiffs while the Defendant shall be unjustly enriched. I will therefore make an award of damages in favour of the Plaintiffs on quantum meruit. 

	How much is the Plaintiff entitled to in Damages?

36.	The Plaintiffs claim the sum of K503,682.00. The next issue is how much should the Court award.  What is the reasonable amount in the circumstances?  What factors should the Court consider in awarding an appropriate sum.
 
37.  In this case the parties do not seem to have any regard for compliance of administration guidelines and financial instructions issued under the Public Finances (Management) Act. It is arguable that the Plaintiffs should not benefit from illegal contracts.  On the other hand, the defendant should not enrich itself unjustly from the transaction. It appears both parties have equally contributed to the illegality. I also note the Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their loss. When they first learnt of the failure by the Defendant to pay their earlier invoices, they kept on supplying goods which was not properly sanctioned and for which they had little assurance of being paid. The Plaintiffs have an obligation to mitigate their loss by refusing to provide further services which they failed to do. In the circumstances the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the full sum claimed. 

        	APPROPRIATE FIGURE

38.	In my view, the most appropriate figure to fairly compensate the Plaintiffs, and to do justice in the circumstances in terms of money and considering the factors discussed above is to make an award for a fraction of the claim. In balancing the considerations, I am prepared to make an award of damages representing 60 % of the total claim (K503,682.00) which amounts to K302,209.20.

	GST

39.	The Court notes the debt includes figures for GST. The Plaintiffs have not produced evidence that they are registered taxpayers with Internal Revenue Commission, nor have they been tax compliant. The Plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to the GST component of the claim.  The GST component of the claim allowed is K27,473.56. After deducting the GST component, the balance of the amount to be awarded is K 274,735.64. 

       OTHER CLAIMS

40.  The Plaintiffs have pleaded other heads of damages in general damages, exemplary damages, and economic loss in the statement of claim. However, the Plaintiffs have not brought evidence in support of those claims. Besides, in the light of the findings it is not appropriate to make any awards in respect of these claims. 

	INTEREST

41.	The Plaintiffs claim 8 % interest. For the same reasons given in the judgment, I will allow interest at a reduced rate of 4%. Interest at 4% is awarded on the principal sum of K 274,735.64 from date of Writ of Summons (25th May 2022) to date of Judgment (17th August 2023), that is a period of 450 days. By way of calculation, 4% interest on K 274.735.64 is K 10,989.43 per annum which accrues at K30.11 per day. For the total period it amounts to K 13,548.61.

42. 	The total award inclusive of interest shall be K288,284.24.

	COSTS

43.	The Plaintiffs have been successful in pursuing this claim.  The Plaintiffs are entitled to cost and shall be awarded accordingly.

	ORDERS

44.    The Court orders that:

1.	Judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs in the sum of K288,284.24 inclusive of interest.

2.	Post Judgment interest shall accrue at the rate of 4% per annum after 30 days of this order until settlement.

3.	The Defendant shall pay the cost of the proceedings, to be taxed, if not agreed.

4.	Time of entry of these Orders is abridged to take place forthwith upon the Court signing of the Orders.

____________________________________________________________
Berem Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiff