HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Laba Abadi Shipping SDN BHD v World Link Resources Ltd 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	21 April 2020	
		
Parties: 	Laba Abadi Shipping SDN BHD v World Link Resources Limited	
		
Date of hearing: 	20 March 2020	
		
Court file number(s): 	376 of 2018	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 	High Court of Solomon Island, Honiara	
		
Judge(s): 	Faukona; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. A total sum of US$292,503.25 is awarded to the Claimant with interest at the rate of 5%per annum from 21 March 2017, until payment in full
2. Cos id the proceedings be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant on standard basis	
		
Representation: 	Mr. A. Radclyffe for the Claimant 
Mr. L. Kwaiga for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 376 of 2018

BETWEEN 

LABA ABADI SHIPPING SDN BHD 
Claimant 

AND:

WORLD LINK RESOURCES LIMITED 
Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 20 March 2020
Date of Judgment: 21 April 2020

Mr. A. Radclyffe for the Claimant
Me. L. Kwaiga for the Defendant 
JUDGMENT
Faukona PJ: A claim in category B was filed on 15th October 2018. A defense was filed on 15th November 2018, which was later amended on 11th June 2019.
2.	This cause of action emerged out of what was claimed to be a breach of agreement which the Defendant failed to give 3 months notice to terminate the agreements.
3. 	The parties are, the Claimant which owned two vessels, the tug boat Mulia Permata and the barge Penata Hijau (“the vessels”). The Defendant is a mining Company in-corporate in Solomon Islands, under the Solomon Islands laws.
4. 	The Defendant so desirous to lease those two vessels. As a result two lease Agreements were executed by the parties on 15th December 2016 on terms and conditions set out therein.
5. 	It would seem the charter or leases were commenced on 15th December 2016, the date the vessels arrived in Solomon Islands and probably were delivered to the Defendants, though not clear.
6. 	Both vessels rate of lease was US$27,500.00 for each per month payable within the first 7 days of each month. Apart from that, clause 3 of both agreements required the first payments be made two month in advance from the date of signing the agreements to the date when the vessels were delivered.
7. 	I noted the core claim is in monetary term of US$137,500.00 for the accounting balance due to the Claimant together with three months rental for breaching of section 8 clause 8.2 of the Agreements (not giving three months notice of termination).
8. 	On the date of trial the Court rejected the sworn statement intended to be tendered by the Counsel for the Defendant, in support of the Defendant’s case. The ground is that it was filed not in accordance with the direction orders, therefore cannot be admitted at the last moment. The second reason is if the Court accepted it will further prolong the delay of the trial, hence defeating the objectives of the Rules.
9. 	That failure has therefore brought about the status of the Defendant’s case with no evidence to support facts pleaded in the amended defense.
10. 	Without any option this Court will assess the evidence adduced by the Claimant with some guidance noted from the Defendant’s Counsel Submissions.
11. 	I have perused the first statements of account prepared by the Claimant which concluded with a balance due as US$137.500.00. Little difference to that is the second statement of account which concluded with balance due of US$127,503.25.
12. 	I noted the Counsel for the Defendant submits that there were two payments made on 6th and 18th October 2016 in lieu of two months payment for the two vessels in the sum of US$109,490.00. Those payments were to cover the months of December 2016 right up to 15/2/2017 considering the fact that the date of lease commenced on 15th December 2016, and the vessels should be in the possession of the Defendant by then.
13. 	From the statement of accounts drawn as from 5th December 2016 to 24th March 2017, I could also able to read that the Claimant had expended money on the vessels, also received monies from the Defendants which were accounted for as either unpaid or partly paid lease which finally balance as US$137,503.25 as balance due.
14. 	However, upon reading of the second statement which recorded all transactions up to 24th March 2017, eighteen days more than the first statement, I notice the balance due is US127,503.25. Notably there is one transaction more than the first that is refund of rental deposits of US$110,000.00.
15. 	I do not know much about accounting but the second statement should finally settle the claim. Based on evidence before this Court, I am satisfied on the balance of probability that US$127,503.25 should settle claim. I therefore awarded that amount to the Claimant.
16. 	In regards to lease payments in lieu for failure by the Defendant not to give three months’ notice before termination of the agreements, therefore an act breaching Clause 8.2. The argument advance by the Defendant is that the Claimant had failed to ensure ramp door and side walls of the barge were properly installed, repaired and maintained. Secondly Clause 5.2 implied as a reason for instantly termination of the lease agreements, where Claimant failed to maintain within 7 days. And thirdly pursuant to Clause 5.3 of the agreements the Captain and Crews of the tug boat were notified of the defects but were not repaired within seven (7) days.
17. 	The problem with the Defendants argument is that those facts were pleaded in paragraph 3.5 of the defense. But it lacks evidence to support. The only statement that intended to support the defense was ruled out as inadmissible for filing late on the morning of the day of trial. Hence the Court cannot consider those facts as they are part of the pleadings that has no evidence to proof.
18.	It therefore remains the evidence by the Claimant that the Defendant had breached Clause 8 of the Agreements for not giving the Claimant three months notice before termination of the agreements. For breach of the Lease Agreement a sum of US$165,000.00, that is US$55,000.00 multiply by 3 months Charter fees in lieu of notice. I am satisfied on the evidence in support of the amount claim; therefore I must award US$165,000.00 to the Claimant.
Orders:
1) 	A total sum of US$292,503.25 is awarded to the Claimant with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 21st March 2017, until payment in full.
2) 	Cost of the proceedings be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant on standard basis.
THE COURT.