[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2003 >> [2003] VUSC 17

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Kensington Publications Ltd v Geoffrey Gee & Partners [2003] VUSC 17; Civil Case 055 of 1996 (11 April 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

CIVIL CASE No. 55 OF 1996

IN THE MATTER OF: KENSINGTON PUBLICATIONS LIMITED

AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Taxation of Costs

BETWEEN:

KENSINGTON PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
of 111 Southwark Street, London, SEIOJF
Plaintiff

AND:

GEOFFREY GEE & PARTNERS
of P.O. Box 782, Port-Vila, Efate in the Republic of Vanuatu
Defendant

Coram: Chief Justice Vincent LUNABEK

Counsels: Mr. Juris Ozols for the plaintiff
Mr. John Malcolm for the defendant

JUDGMENT

This is an application by the plaintiff to have the bill of costs of the defendant, taxed.

The basis of the taxation is solicitor and client basis.

The plaintiff approached the defendant in November 1993 to do some debt recovery work on their behalf against the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Foreign Affairs totalling an amount of £14,067.

The debt recovery proceedings resulted from the actions brought by the plaintiff against the above mentioned Ministries of the Government of Vanuatu.

For some reasons, the application for taxation became interconnected with enforcement proceedings obtained against the National Housing of Vanuatu in the sum of £16,000. The National Housing made payment by instalments of £1,017. But the defendant were not instructed in the latter proceedings.

The defendant issued 3 identical writs and applied for 4 summary judgments. The Attorney General advised the plaintiff that the defendant had no instruction to enter the defence on behalf of the 3 Ministries referred to above. They were looking for money to pay the bills.

The defendant claimed £16,000 and legal costs of £8,000.

It is submitted for the plaintiff that on proper calculation basis and on time record, the proper payment as between the solicitor and client is less than £8,000.

It is further said that in a case involving the Ministry of Transport the fees agreed and accepted between the plaintiff and the defendant on the granting of a summary judgment, was £800.

It was therefore put that for the 3 matters on which the defendant was instructed, it is hard to justify an amount of £800 x 3 = £2,400.

There must be some considerable discount as the three (3) matters were dealt with at the same time. The only parties which involved into discussions were the officers of the Attorney General’s Office.

It is therefore submitted that an amount of £1,600 would be fair or realistic. The defendant claim was in excess of £9,000. A total of payment of £23,000 including interest and final instalment from the National Housing Cooperation debt were already paid to the defendant.

The claim of costs was made on the basis of the following process:

• Issue writs
• applying and obtaining summary judgment
• Dealing with 3 cases on similar proceedings

The plaintiff demanded the defendant to be paid immediately with the debts money recovered by the defendant. The totality of the work done by Mr. Malcolm for the defendant was in the payment of £23,118.14.

The original claim was £19,000. The amount of £9,000 is almost half of the original claim.

It was difficult to find out about the actual time spent. The defendant admitted they cannot respond to the question of time in a meaningful way.

On the basis of the above information and upon consideration, the Court makes Orders:

1. THAT the defendant is entitled to £3,000 for their costs.
2. THAT an enforcement hearing is set on 30 May 2003 at 8.30AM o’clock.

DATED at Port-Vila, this 11th day of April 2003

BY THE COURT

Vincent LUNABEK
Chief Justice