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

South Pacific Ltd v Teikare Timber Ltd [2025] SBHC 165; HCSI-CC 405 of 2025 (9 December 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 405 of 2025

BETWEEN

SOUTH PACIFIC OIL LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

TEIKARE TIMBER LIMITED
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 9 December 2025b
Date of Ruling: 9 December 2025

Counsel;

Ms A Willy for the Claimant
No Appearance for the Defendant

Nott; PJ

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Background

1. This is an application for default judgment brought by the Claimant pursuant to r 9.17 and 9.23 to 9.27 of the Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (“the Rules”). The Defendant has not filed a Response or Defence within the time required under r 5.37 and has taken no step in the proceeding. The Claimant now seeks judgment for the liquidated debt of SBD $199,787.60, together with interest and indemnity costs.
2. The Claimant is a company duly incorporated under the laws of Solomon Islands and carries on the business of supplying and distributing fuel and related petroleum products. The Defendant is likewise a duly incorporated company capable of suing and being sued in its own name.
3. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant purchased fuel products and accrued an outstanding debt of SBD $199,787.60, which despite demand has not been paid. No part of the debt has been disputed or reduced.
4. On 12 September 2025, the Claimant filed a Category B Claim seeking payment of the debt, interest, indemnity costs, and further orders as the Court considers just.
5. On 9 October 2025, the Claim was personally served on Mr Derek Ngu, the General Manager of the Defendant, at Lungga. Lungga which is approximately 15 kilometres by public road from the Honiara Post Office. The Claim was therefore served within the geographical zone contemplated by r 5.37(a) and (c).
6. The Defendant did not file a Response within 14 days as required and did not file a Defence within 28 days. No communication was made to the Claimant or to the Court.
7. On 17 November 2025, the Claimant filed an application for default judgment, accompanied by a sworn statement from Mr George Keni, which confirmed service of the Claim and the Defendant’s continued inaction.
8. The Application for Default Judgment, the supporting sworn statements, and a Notice of Hearing for 20 November 2025 were subsequently served on the Defendant. The Defendant did not appear, did not file any document, and did not seek an adjournment.

The Application

9. The Claimant seeks:
   1. judgment for the amount of SBD $199,787.60;
   2. interest pursuant to r 9.24 and 9.26;
   100. indemnity costs; and
   4. such further orders as the Court considers appropriate.
10. The issue for determination is whether the Claimant has satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements for default judgment under the Rules.

Legal Framework

11. Rule 5.11 requires a defendant who intends to contest a claim to file and serve a Defence within the time stipulated by r 5.37. Under r 5.37(a), where a claim is served within 20 kilometres of the main Post Office in Honiara, a Response must be filed and served within 14 days of service. Under r 5.37(c), a Defence must be filed and served within 28 days of service. A defendant who fails to file either a Response or a Defence within these timeframes falls into default for the purposes of r 9.17.
12. Rule 9.17 entitles a claimant to apply for default judgment once proof of service is filed. In a Category B claim, being a liquidated monetary claim, r 9.23 to 9.27 govern the procedure:
    1. r 9.23: Claimant may apply for judgment for the amount specified, interest, and costs.
    2. r 9.24: Court may enter judgment for the principal sum, interest from filing, and costs.
    100. r 9.25: Sworn statement in support must specify the amount owing, reductions (if any), interest claimed and how calculated, and costs claimed.
    4. r 9.26–9.27: Interest may be awarded either at the contractual rate, a rate fixed under r 17.65, or a lump sum.
13. The Court retains a discretion whether to enter judgment. The authorities emphasise that default judgment is not granted where jurisdictional questions arise or where the nature of the claim requires substantive adjudication. Where the claim is straightforward and no substantive issues are raised, default judgment is the ordinary and proper response to a defendant’s failure to engage.

Application of the Law to the Facts

Default judgment is a significant remedy and is not granted as a matter of course. The Court must be satisfied that the procedural requirements under the Rules have been complied with, that service was properly effected, that the claim falls within the category permitting default judgment, and that there is no jurisdictional or substantive impediment to entering judgment without trial.

Compliance with r 5.11 and 5.37

14. The Claim was validly served within 20 km of the Honiara Post Office. The Defendant had until 24 October 2025 to file a Response and until 7 November 2025 to file a Defence.
15. The Defendant filed nothing and has not communicated with the Claimant or the Court. Its default is complete.
16. The sworn statements of Mr Keni establish proper service of all relevant documents, including the Claim, the Default Judgment Application, and the Notice of Hearing. No contrary evidence has been filed.

Compliance with r 9.23-9.27

17. The Claimant’s sworn statements meet every requirement of r 9.25. The amount owing is specified as SBD $199,787.60; no payments or credits have been made; interest is sought in accordance with the Rules; and the Claimant has provided particulars of costs.
18. There is no question of jurisdiction, complexity, or the need for substantive judicial examination. This is a straightforward liquidated debt claim, falling squarely within Category B.
19. The Defendant’s refusal to engage with the proceeding, despite multiple opportunities and clear notice, strengthens the basis for exercising the Court’s discretion in favour of entering judgment.

Discretion to Grant Default Judgment

20. In Van Vlymen v Levers Solomon Ltd [2021] SBCA 2; SICOA-CAC 20 of 2019, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the Civil Procedure Rules must be interpreted purposively pursuant to r.1.3 so as to give effect to their overriding objective of enabling the courts to deal with cases justly, with minimum delay and expense. The Court emphasised that doing justice is the core aim of the Rules and that procedural requirements are a means to that end, not an end in themselves.
21. Accordingly, non-compliance with the Rules is not automatically fatal; the Court retains a broad discretion to cure or overlook procedural defects where the interests of justice require, including the power to set aside or disregard steps taken in a proceeding. Justice requires consideration of the importance and complexity of the case, the amount in issue, and the financial position of the parties.
22. In Van Vlymen, the appellant’s failure to file a conditional response and defence in accordance with the Rules initially justified refusal of leave to appeal. However, once further material was provided, revealing an arguable case, issues of public importance, and a risk of substantial injustice, the full court exercised its discretion to allow the amended application, notwithstanding the prior non-compliance. Importantly, the Court accepted that default judgment may properly be entered where a party, despite being afforded opportunities and reminders, fails to comply with procedural requirements or to place before the Court the material necessary to progress the matter. The Court noted, with approval, the decision of the primary judge to dismiss the appellant’s applications where neither he nor his counsel appeared, and where sworn evidence established proper service of the claim. The case illustrates that where a defendant, despite notice, fails to respond in accordance with the Rules or to participate in the proceeding, the entry of default judgment is a regular and justifiable exercise of the Court’s powers and accords with the overriding objective.
23. I am satisfied that no injustice will arise from entering judgment without trial. The Claim is unopposed, the debt is liquidated, the evidence of service of the Claim is compelling, and the Defendant has made no attempt to respond. I am further satisfied that the Defendant was also served with the present application for default judgment, although service of such an application is not required under the Rules. The Defendant has therefore had every reasonable opportunity to engage with the proceeding and has chosen not to do so.
24. The case raises no jurisdictional defects, does not concern declaratory or discretionary relief, and presents no question of legal complexity that would preclude the administrative application of the Rules. It is an ordinary claim for a liquidated sum in which the prerequisites for entering default judgment have been satisfied.

Costs (Including Indemnity Costs)

25. The Claimant seeks indemnity costs on the basis that the Defendant:
    1. was properly served with the Claim, the Default Judgment Application, and the Notice of Hearing;
    2. failed to file any document; and
    100. failed to attend Court.
26. The Defendant’s inaction has caused unnecessary expense and delay. It has deprived the Claimant of the ordinary progression of litigation and has necessitated this application. In these circumstances, indemnity costs are appropriate and justified.

Orders

1. The Defendant is in default of r 5.11 and 5.37.
2. The requirements for default judgment under r 9.17, 9.23 to 9.27 have been met.
3. The Court therefore orders that default judgment be entered for the Claimant in the following terms:
   1. The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant the sum of SBD $199,787.60 converted by forthwith on verdict being entered.
   2. Interest shall be 5% on the said judgment sum from date money converted up to date settlement paid in full pursuant to r 17.65.
   100. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs on an indemnity basis.
   4. The Claimant may file a draft order reflecting these terms.

By the Court
Hon. Justice Gina Maree Nott
Puisne Judge