Defendants representing the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. When drawing attention to the caption of the Plaint it appears that it has named Hilde Haraldstad Ambassador Norwegian Embassy as the 1stDefendant, Erik Solheim, Minister of Environment and Cooperation as 2nd Defendant, Jonas GahrStore Minister of Foreign Affairs as the 3rd Defendant, Ingrid Fiska, State Secretary, Secretary to theMinistry of Environment and International Development as the 4th Defendant, Espen Barth Eide StateSecretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the 5th Defendant; Kjersti Anderson, Assistant DirectorGeneral, Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the 6th Defendant, Vigdis Wathne past Chief Secretary,Norwegian Embassy as the Defendant, “Edle Hamare Past Consular Officer Norwegian Embassy asthe 8th Defendant, 9th Erik Glenne Director Foreign Service Administration Unit as the Defendantand Tire Hattrem Past Ambassador Norwegian Embassy as the 10th Defendant.
British High Commission
In addition four representatives of the British High Commission have been named in the caption. They are H.E. Joh Rankin, High Commissioner, British High Commission as the 11th Defendant, TomOwen Edmunds, Head of Political and Development Division, British High Commission as the 12thDefendant, William Hague State Secretary Overseas and Commonwealth Office as 13th Defendantand Russel Crane, South Asian Group Overseas and Commonwealth Office as 14th Defendant.
According to paragraph 43 of the Plaint the right that the Plaintiff had to file action against the 11thto 14th Defendants is said to have been voluntarily withdrawn as a mark of appreciation of servicegiven to the Plaintiff by the British High Commission. According to Journal Entry NO.1 Summons hadbeen served to all the Defendants on 15-092011 by Registered Post and through Ministry of ForeignAffairs. On 25-05-2012 lawyers appeared representing all parties and argued that as Defendants areHigh ranking officers and Ambassadors of Foreign States they have immunity in this country. As norelief has been sought for 11th to 14th Defendants they have been released from the case.
A panel of lawyers had appeared on behalf of 1st to 10th Defendants under Section 41 of the Judicial Service ActNo. 02 of 1978 to assist the Court. In terms of Sub Section 41(1) of the Judicial Procedure Act it is stated that everylawyer has the entitlement to tender replies and implement them in all Courts that have been established to assistand advise clients. Also in terms of Sub Section 41(2) any person exercising half Judicial Power has the entitlementto represent any party through an Attorney-at-Law. If it is so on behalf of 1st to 10th Defendants under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Code Submissions had been made 1ston behalf of parties without filing a proxy to appoint alawyer on behalf of 1st to 11th Defendants appearance had been made in Court without filing a proxy to assistCourt (Amions Curaie).Judicial assistants
In Case Seneviratne Vs. Attorney General (71NRL 439) and Seetha Vs. Sharmananda and others(1989 105 Sri Lanka Law Report 94) the possibility of lawyers appearing as helpers to court had beentaken into consideration. As Defendants 1 to 10 have foreign sovereignty a request has been madeto provide judicial assistants on their behalf due to the fact that when proxies are filed making themDefendants they are regarded to have waived off immunity entitled to them till such time the judgment is given. Drawing attention to Superintendent Government Soap Factory, Bangalore VCommissioner of Income Tax (43 NRL 439) in Taylor V Best (14GB 487) it is mentioned “where theAmbassador had voluntarily appeared as one of several Defendants and defended the Section to Judgment he had waived his privilege”. As Defendants 1 to 10 are representatives of the NorwegianGovernment and Ambassadors and as they are claiming for immunity by way of filing proxy in thiscase, the said immunity is regarded to have been waived. Submissions had been made in thismanner representing as judicial assistants.