IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS 

CIVIL JURISDICTION 

Civil Case No. 124 of 2015

BETWEEN:	JOHN MOLI							-	Claimant
	
AND:		ATTORNEY-GENERAL						-	Defendant 
		(Representing the Ministry of Communication and Aviation)

Date of Hearing: 	29th July 2016.
Date of Ruling: 	8th August 2016.

Mrs. M. Bird for the Claimant.
No appearance for the Defendant.

KENIAPISIA; PJ: 
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Introduction

1.	Claimant filed a Category B claim on 8/4/2015.  Claim is for breach of contract and damages in the sum of $210,000.00.  Claim was served on the defendant on 8/4/2015.  Defendant did not deny receipt of the claim. Claimant obtained leave to apply for default judgment against the crown.  Leave was granted on 9/9/2015, by Faukona J.

2.	Today is the hearing of application for default judgment filed 28/9/2015.  Defendant is not represented without prior notice.  Court is satisfied defendant had prior notice. At mention on 26/07/2016, Attorney-General was not in Court.  Court then listed the matter for 8:30 am today. Court directed that Counsel Bird write to the Attorney-General about today’s hearing. Court also caused correspondences with Counsels through the Listing Coordinator.  Counsel Bird produced over the Bar Table a letter she wrote to the Attorney-General, about today’s hearing. That letter was dated 26/07/2016.  By listing this hearing for 8:30 am, the Attorney-General should not have any excuses as to clashes in listing.

Issues 

3.	The issues are whether or not the Court should grant default judgment against the defendant. Additionally whether or not defendant should be granted leave to file its defence out of time.

Delay in filing a defence 

4.	Defendant’s reasons for not filing a defence on time are deposed to in a sworn statement (ss) filed by George Satu, on 29/6/2015. Defendant said there was oversight. Defendant also said it has a meritorious defence and sought leave to file defence out of time.  Court does not accept oversight as a reasonable cause for delay in filing defence. Claimant wrote to warn the defendant of application for default judgment by letter dated 18/05/2015. To merely say oversight is not convincing.  Defendant ought to explain why there was oversight – heavy work commitment, misplacing of file or trying to locate relevant officer, would have add value to oversight. 
Arguable defence

5.	Defendant’s draft defence says that the contract was terminated for non-performance, neglect of duties and failure to execute the scope of works. Court is satisfied this is an arguable defence, that must be investigated at trial.

6.	There is yet a further reason; Court must allow this case to proceed to full trial, in view of the nature of this claim (public tender, contract and termination by the State).  In determining whether or not to grant default judgment, Court must have regard to the nature of the claim. Public always complain about contract awarded by the State.  Public often perceived the tender, award and termination of contracts by the State as corrupt.  In recent past, we see public complained widely about grass cutting contracts for Henderson international airport awarded to Members of Parliament. It is therefore important that the award and termination of this contract be fully investigated at trial, to clear any doubt about perceived corrupt dealings by officers of the Government.

7.	Orders of the Court are:

7.1	Default judgment application filed 28/09/2015 is refused.

7.2	Defendant granted leave to file its defence out of time; in 14 days.

7.3	Matter mentioned on 30/08/2016. 

7.4	Costs against the defendant on indemnity basis. 

THE COURT

------------------------------
JOHN A KENIAPISIA 
PUISNE JUDGE