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

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2004 >> [2004] VUSC 69

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

Ferrieux Patterson v Vanuatu Maritime Authority [2004] VUSC 69; Civil Case 117 of 2003 (23 August 2004)

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

Civil Case No. 117 of 2003

BETWEEN:

MARIE-NOELLE FERRIEUX PATTERSON
Claimant

AND:

THE VANUATU MARITIME AUTHORITY
Defendant

Coram: Justice Treston

Mr. Malcolm for Claimant
Mr. Morrison for the Defendant

Date of Hearing: 23 August 2004

REASONS FOR ENTERING JUDGMENT

On 23 August 2004, the Court set in chambers for an application to show cause pursuant to Rule 18.11 in the Civil Procedure Rules No. 49 of 2002 why an order should not be made against the Defendant. The Claimant applied for judgment and alternatively for wasted costs and final setting of time for complying with orders. The grounds were that the Defendant had refused to comply with disclosure orders relating to providing copies of board minutes, had failed to provide a defence on time and then only filed a pro forma defence and had refused or neglected to provide evidence by filing sworn statements as ordered.

In the event, I gave judgment against the Defendant as the non-complying party. It was clear that the Defendant had at least twice been in breach of orders to file sworn statements. In addition the Defendant had consistently failed to comply with orders as to disclosure and in providing a defence within time limits. No cause why an order should not be made against the Defendant was shown.

Had this been this first time that the Defendant had been in breach of Court orders, the Court might have been disposed to make an order for wasted costs and final orders to comply with time for filing documents but it was not only the orders of 9 July 2004 that had been breached. Even consent orders drafted by the parties and endorsed by the Court on 18 May 2004 had not been complied with. The Defendant only filed a defence to the amended claim on 11 June 2004 when it was required to be filed on 1 June 2004. The Defendant has failed to file any sworn statements between 9 June 2004 and the present time. Earlier orders to provide full disclosure and to file sworn statements had been made on 19 March 2004 and have not complied with to date.

The whole of the Defendants' attitude to the claim has been one of prevarication, delay and non-compliance with the Court orders.

At the hearing the Defendants' solicitor Mr. Morrison was forced to attend Court without instructions. Although officers of the Defendant knew of the date of hearing, none appeared in Court.

It appeared to me to be futile to make any further orders for filing of documentation at that stage and judgment was entered against the Defendant accordingly in terms of Rule 18.11 (4) (a).

Dated AT PORT VILA, this 23rd day of August 2004.

BY THE COURT

P. I. TRESTON
Judge