|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Tokelau |
|
|
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
E NOHO ANA RITE TONU KI TE KŌTI MATUA O TOKELAU
|
|
|
BETWEEN
|
JOVILISI SUVEINAKAMA
First Plaintiff HETO PUKA Second Plaintiff |
|
|
AND
|
COUNCIL FOR THE ONGOING GOVERNMENT OF TOKELAU
First Defendant ULU O TOKELAU Second Defendant ADMINISTRATOR OF TOKELAU Third Defendant |
|
On the papers:
|
|
|
Counsel:
|
J W Goddard for Plaintiffs
B Keith for Third Defendant |
|
Judgment:
|
14 November 2019
|
JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J
(COSTS NO 2)
[1] Both plaintiffs were previously senior employees of the Tokelau Government. Their employment was terminated by the first defendant following an investigation into issues arising from the purchase of two helicopters and a property at Matautu in Samoa for the Government.
[2] The proceedings were issued against three defendants, the Council for the Ongoing Government of Tokelau, the Ulu o Tokelau, and the Administrator of Tokelau. This decision deals solely with the costs application made on behalf of the third defendant.
[3] Shortly before the substantive hearing in this matter, the third defendant sought and obtained an order for security for costs in the sum of $5,000 against each plaintiff. In January 2019, the plaintiffs advised that they consented to their claim against the third defendant “being stayed”. It appears that the reason for them adopting this position was an inability to provide the security for costs ordered against them.
[4] The proceedings were never formally discontinued against the third defendant.
[5] In a decision dated 26 July 2019, this Court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims but found in their favour in relation to the issue of whether or not their suspensions during the course of the employment investigation were unlawful.[1]
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/tk/cases/TKHC/2019/3.html