IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

Nature of Jurisdiction:	Application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders of the High Court of Solomon Islands (Faukona J)	
		
Court File Number:	Civil Appeal Case No.40 of 2011 (On Appeal from High Court Civil Case No. 223 of 2010)	
		
Date of Hearing:	10th February 2012	
Date of Judgment:	27th February 2012	
		
The Court:	Chetwynd JA 	

Parties:	GRP Associates Ltd and Others 
	
	-v-
	
	South Pacific Oil Limited and Others	

Advocates:	Mr A Radclyffe for the Appellants	
	Mr Kingmele for First and Second Respondents	
	Mr Marahare Third Fourth and Fifth Respondents	
		
Key Words:		
Allowed/Dismissed:	 Refused	

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1.	The Appellants in this matter (the Defendants in the main action) filed a number of applications on 30th August 2011. They were heard by Faukona J and he gave a written judgment on 4th November 2011.The Appellants now seek leave to appeal against two of the decisions arising from the "August application".
 
2.	The Appellants seek leave to appeal the decision not to allow a split trial and secondly, they seek leave to appeal against the refusal to make an order giving them access to the First Respondents accounts and accounting records.

3.	The application in respect of the split trial is set out at length at paragraph 2 on page 2 of the application filed on 30th August 2011. In support of the application it is said, " the present case is complicated, both factually and legally, and the issue of liability alone will require a lengthy trial. In accordance with the overriding objective, it would be in the interests of all parties and of the Court for there to be a split trial with issues of the quantum along with the conducting of any valuation of the Company and the taking of any account being tried after the determination of liability". The application was put squarely on the basis that there would be a saving of expenses and time if there were a trial of the separate issues. That can be the only conclusion because of the reference to the overriding objective quoted above.

4.	It is clear from the written judgment that His Lordship considered the matter fully. He did not, as is suggested, base his decision solely on considerations of the principles applicable to applications for a trial of preliminary issues under Rule 12.11. He considered the application fully and decided that a trial of separate issues would not advance the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal dispose of the case, "justly with minimum of delay and expense". The overriding objective requires the court to consider the justice or equity of the situation and to bear in mind all of the interests of all the parties. It is not just a case of looking at cost savings, it is not just a case of looking at the saving of time, the court is required to look at all the circumstances of the matter and it is very difficult to say His Lordship exercised his discretion incorrectly particularly as the pleadings had not closed.

5.	As for the appeal relating to disclosure of accounting records, the Appellants do not advance any reasons why they say His Lordship failed to address their arguments in the first place.

6.	Leave is refused.

………………………………………..
Judge of Appeal