Parente v The Republic of Vanuatu
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
PRELIMINARY
1. After the Defendant ended its case on 12 December 2025, the Court issued directions for the filing of written submissions for the Claimant to be filed by 30 January 2026 and for the Defendant to be filed by 27 February 2026.
2. The Claimant complied by filing its closing address and submissions on 30 January 2026. The Defendant’s counsel did not to file any submissions within the time directed and the Claimant took liberty to file further submissions on 16 June 2026.
3. Due to the long delay, the Court will dispose with the submissions of the defendant.
INTRODUCTION
4. This is an employment claim for:
a) Severance allowance for 2 months from
(i) 15 November 2015 to 31 December 2017 at
157, 987 Euros;
(ii) 1 January 2018 to 30 July 2018 at 14,078 Euros; and
(iii) 31 July 2018 to 28 February 2022 at 94,600 Euros.
b) For accrued annual leaves of 30 days from:
(i) 15 March 2011 to 31 December 2017 in the sum of 79, 016 Euro;
(ii) 1 January 2018 to 30 July 2018 in the sum of 7079 Euros; and
(iii) 31 July 2018 to 28 February 2022 in the sum of 47,300 Euros.
c) For VNPF contributions for the periods from:
(i) 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2008 in the sum of 23,904 Euros;
(ii) 1 August 2008 to 15 March 2011 in the sum of 22,932 Euros;
(iii) 15 March 2011 to 31 December 2011 in the sum of 75,850 Euros,
(iv) 1 January 2018 to 30 July 2018 in the sum of 6,796 Euros; and
(v) 31 July to 28 February 2022 in the sum of 45,408 Euros.
The total amount of the Claimant’s claim is 574,941 Euros
d) A multiplier of the severance entitlements pursuant to section 56 of the Employment Act CAP 160.
e) Interest.
f) Costs.
BACKGROUND FACTS
5. Between 1 August 2005 and 31 July 2008, the claimant was employed by the defendant as the appointed Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the United Nations International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
6. On 16 August 2005 the defendant through its Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade issued a letter of credentials to the attention of IMO’s Secretary General appointing the claimant again as Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO.
7. Between 1 August 2008 and 15 March 2011 the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as the appointed Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO.
8. Between 15 March 2011 and 31 December 2017, the Claimant was further employed by the Defendant as Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO.
9. On 13 January 2016 the defendant through its then Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and External Trade issued a letter of credentials to the attention of the IMO Secretary General elevating the claimant position of Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO.
10. Between 1 January 2018 and 30 July 2018, the Claimant’s employment appointment as Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO between 15 March 2011 and 31 December 2017 was extended by agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.
11. Between 31 July 2018 and 31 January 2021, the Claimant was further employed by the Defendant as the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO. By agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant this engagement was extended to 28 February 2022.
12. On 1st March 2022 the Claimant was further employed by the Defendant as Permanent Representative of the Republic of Vanuatu to the IMO for a period of 3 years but the engagement was terminated by agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant due to other professional commitments.
13. Since termination of his employment the Claimant has attempted to resolve his salary issues for the relevant period from 1st August 2005 to 28 February 2022 by direct negotiations with the defendant. However, negotiations have failed resulting in the Claimant filing his Supreme Court claim on 17 April 2023.
DEFENCE
14. The Defendant filed his defence on 26 September 2023 denying the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant from 1 August 2005 until the end of February 2022. The only period the defendant accepts the claimant was an employee of the Republic was the period from 1st March 2022 until April 2023 when the claimant terminated his employment with the defendant.
15. Further the defendant denied the claimant is entitled to any employment benefits or entitlements relying on section 3 (1) of the Limitation Act [CAP 212] which places a time limitation on the entitlements. The reason being that the claimant was not in continuous employment.
EVIDENCE
16. The Claimant relied on the evidence by sworn statements of himself dated 12 December 2023 (Exhibit C1), of 30 October 2024 (Exhibit C2) and of Robert Bohn dated 5th December 2024 ( Exhibit C3) tendered by consent without cross examination.
17. The defendant relied on the evidence by sworn statements of John Less Napuati dated 22 May 2024 ( Exhibit D1) of Tony Sewen dated 27 May 2024 (Exhibit D2) and of Yvon Basil dated 19 July 2024
( Exhibit D3).
SUBMISSIONS
18. The claimant submitted three central issues for determination:
a. Whether the claimant’s engagements constituted a contract of service under the principles of Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2QB 497 and Guy Benard v Republic CC 153/2010?
b. Whether the relationship was continuous from 2005 until April 2023, notwithstanding administrative and contractual changes?
c. Whether the Government, having exercised control and derived benefit throughout, bears legal responsibility for the claimant’s employment entitlements?
19. The defendant has not filed any written submissions and it is unfortunate. There has been considerable delay therefore the Court will dispense with the defendant’s written submissions.
DISCUSSION
20. I have considered the issues raised by the claimant’s counsel in light of the pleadings of the claimant contained in his Supreme Court claim, and the pleadings in the defendant’s defence. I have also considered the evidence filed by the claimant in support of his claims and the evidence filed by the defendant in support of the defence.
21. I find there is overwhelming evidence showing that the claimant was engaged in a continuous relationship from 2005 to April 2023 notwithstanding that there were administrative and contractual changes along the way.
22. Further, I find that the claimant’s continued engagements under separate contracts from 2005 to April 2023 constituted contracts of service under the principles of the Ready Mixed Concreted Ltd case and the Benard case.
23. Finally, I find that during the period from 2005 to April 2023, the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu had continuous relationship and control over the employment of the claimant. As such, the defendant now bears the responsibility and liability to pay the claimant’s entitlements and benefits as claimed.
24. I accept the claimant’s counsel’s submissions that the case of Kouback v Republic [2026] VUCA 34 strongly support the claimant’s position and the authority is adopted and applied.
THE RESULT
25. For the reasons given, I enter judgment for the claimant for the sums specified in the Table of Entitlements Numbered 1-5 inclusive, and attached with his claim filed on 17 April 2023. The total amount is 574,941 Euros or its equivalent in VATU currency, to be paid by the Republic of Vanuatu to the claimant.
26. However the claimant’s claim for a multiplier of severance entitlements is rejected.
27. Interests are allowed on 574,941 Euros at 5% per annum from the date of filing until the judgment sum is fully paid.
28. Finally the claimant is entitled to his costs of the proceeding on the standard basis as agreed or taxed.
DATED at Port Vila this 13th day of October 2026
BY THE COURT
Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak