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

Red Beach Enterprises Ltd v Loea [2000] SBHC 72; HCSI-CC 262 of 2000 (11 December 2000)

CC, 262, 2000.HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No.262 0f 2000

RED BEACH ENTERPRISES LIMITED, PATRICK HAMPTON

-v-

FRANK LOEA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)
Civil Case No. 262 of 2000

Hearing: 11 December 2000
Ruling: 11 December 2000

J. Sullivan for Plaintiffs
C. Ashley for Defendants

MURIA CJ: This is an application by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief. In support of their application, the plaintiffs relied on two affidavits sworn and filed by the second plaintiff.

The defendant in response also filed an affidavit upon which he relied.

I have heard arguments for and against the orders sought. I have also read the materials filed and relied upon by both parties. There appears to be on the affidavit materials room for some compromise in this matter. However, it seems that the parties have not explored such opportunities and this is not going to help resolve the dispute between the parties.

As a consequence of that unresolved dispute between the parties with regard to the defendant's share entitlement in the 1st plaintiff company, the Bank is obviously concerned with regard to the 1st plaintiff’s ability to repay its debt to the Bank. A further consequence of that is now a Writ in CC267/2000 filed in this Court by the Bank against the 1st plaintiff, 2nd plaintiff and two other persons. The likely consequence of that is that not only the 1st and 2nd plaintiff but also the defendant will be likely to lose out of the whole episode. For the 1st plaintiff company is clearly in huge debt to the Bank who will take all necessary actions to secure repayment of its money.

As I see it, the defendant will not gain anything and the plaintiffs will gain little if this matter is not resolved with some commercial sense before the trial of the action. However, that is a matter which solicitors can advise their clients on and not for the Court to advise upon.

The Court is, however, mindful of doing its best to ensure that there is a just solution to this dispute according to Law. That can only be done now by making orders which will preserve the status quo of the matter, that is to say, to ensure that the company properties remain intact for the benefit of all concerned while the action is to be determined at the trial, if it needs to come to trial. In order to do that, the Court will grant the orders sought in the notice of motion.

With regard to the 2nd plaintiff's properties, again an order to preserve the status quo between the parties is necessary pending trial. The Court will also grant the order sought in the notice of motion in this regard.

Thus in the circumstances, the more sensible course of action to take in the interest of all concerned would be to grant the orders sought in the notice of motion.

With regard to costs, generally, costs cannot be taxed until the action is concluded. The Court will therefore order that the plaintiffs' costs in the cause be paid by the defendant.

The Court orders accordingly.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE