re: Ann: Axiom Mining Litigation and Capital ... Do you people...

re: Ann: Axiom Mining Litigation and Capital ... Do you people not understand the importance of the following??


Recent Court of Appeal Ruling

The Solomon Islands Court of Appeal is the highest Court of Solomon Islands and the High Court is subject to its rulings where it is relevant.

On 8 November 2013, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in Lever Solomons Limited v

Attorney General.

The case related to registered land owned by Lever Solomons Limited. The Appeal was

against a High Court decision by former Justice David Chetwynd.

The Court of Appeal judgement stated the following:

“We have already noted the indefeasibility conferred by registration and the certainty

created by the register. It is clearly intended so that person dealing with registered owners do not have to go behind the register. We cite, and agree with the following passage from

paragraph 68 of the appellant's written submission:

The register is both conclusive and exhaustive and searches and investigations beyond the register should be unnecessary: Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (2007)

233 CLR 528 at [39]. Title is comprised by the record contained in the register and it is this

which is the source of the title rather than a retrospective approbation of a derivative right: Peldan v Anderson (2006) 227 CLR 471 at [20] per Gummow A-CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and

Crennan JJ. The very purpose of the system is to give effect to the important public policy “that the land title register should be sufficient of itself to inform those concerned about the

nature and extent of any outstanding interest in relation to the land”: Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd v French (2007) 235 CLR 81 at [14] per Kirby J. The “principal way in which the

legislation has achieved its objects has been the elevation of the Register above all else”

such that the “Register has the first and the last word on all relevant titles and interests”:

Black v Garnock (2007) 230 CLR 438 at [75] per Callinan J. As made clear in Manepora'a v

Aonima [2011] SBHC 79, once a person becomes registered as the owner of an interest

under the LT Act, he has absolute liberty to deal with that interest according to the title

which attaches to it under the LT Act and an innocent party is not bound to look beyond the

register.”

The court ruled in the appellant's (registered landowner's) favour.

This decision reinforces Axiom's case in that its 50 year registered lease is indefeasible.




One major issue I always had was that axiom did not tender for the project, and this in some way was a loophole that SMM tried to exploit to their advantage to a extent.
This ruling has TOTALLY shut that door and with our landowners onside this now becomes a case very much less complex,
Ruling that our way of tendering is legal and valid in the high court means again axiom were 100% correct in their direction and also process.

I spoke to someone today, axiom are yet to take the stand and I was advised that they don't expect to call many witnesses,
The case from our end is very simple and goes around the LAW,
Not theories and conspiracies but law....
Law of the people, and law of the SI....

Well done again RM.