Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> provide that, " rilssues of fact arising in connection with any <br /> claim for such damage shall be tried by the court without a jury <br /> unless a trial by jury is demanded by either party [ . ] " (Emphases <br /> added. ) Despite that language, there is no irreconcilable <br /> conflict between the requirement in HRAP Rule 39 that the Request <br /> ".must be filed with the appellate clerk" and the requirement in <br /> HRS 5 101-27 that " [i] ssues of fact . . . shall be tried by the <br /> court . " This court has held that where a statute and a rule <br /> merely overlap, but do not irreconcilably conflict, effect should <br /> be given to both if possible. See Chock v. Gov' t Employees Ins . <br /> Co . , 103 Hawaii 263, 269, 81 P. 3d 1178, 1184 (2003) (although <br /> recognizing that "where there is a 'plainly irreconcilable' <br /> conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the <br /> same subject matter, the specific will be favored[ , ] " applying <br /> the rule that "where the statutes simply overlap in their <br /> application, effect will be given to both if possible, " and <br /> thereby holding that " [t] his court can give effect to both <br /> Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54 (d) and HRS <br /> § 431 : 10-242") . Therefore, if HRS § 101-27 and HRAP Rule 39 can <br /> be read in pari materia without conflict, then this court must <br /> give effect to both. <br /> HRS § 101-27 does not include any language dealing <br /> expressly with the issue of damages incurred pursuant to an <br /> appeal . Because HRS § 101-27 is silent as to which court a <br /> request for damages should be directed, the procedure as set <br /> 9 <br />