Angco v Fiji Medical Council [1997] FJHC 44; Hbc0010.96, Hba0007.94, Hba0001.94 (10 April 1997)

Fiji Islands - Angco v The Fiji Medical Council - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

(AT SUVA)

Civil Action HBC 0010 of 1996
Civil Appeal HBA 0007 of 1994
Civil Appeal HBA 0001 of 1994

BETWEEN:

RAMON FERMIN ANGCO
Plaintiff/Appellant

AND:

THE FIJI MEDICAL COUNCIL
Defendant/Respondent

A. Kat the Plaintiff
D. Singh for the Defendant
S. Sharma for the Applicant

DECISION/p>

This is plication by the Fiji Medical Association to intervene in the litigation between the partiearties which litigation has so far resulted in my Judgment delivered on 10 July 1996.

In support of the application the President of the Fiji Medical Association filed an avit on 16 January 1997 to 7 to which there has been no response. As appears from the affidavit the Applicant's central contention is that the Plaintiff, by falsely deposing that he had been registered under Part II of the Register of Medical Practitioners had misled the Court on a fundamental matter of fact upon which the Judgment of 10 July depended.

RHC O15 r6(2)(b) is in broad terms nables the addition of a party at any stage of the proceedings. Having however heard counseounsel and considered the material before me I am satisfied that I should refuse this application for the following reasons.

ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> First, the conflicts and litigation between thties has for some time been a matter of notoriety and the Athe Applicant has given no reasons either for not intervening earlier or for delaying this applications for 9 months after judgment.

Second, the undisputed evidence before me at the hearing was that the tiff had, as a mattematter of fact, been registered under part II (see paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Mrs L. Tavaga, the Secretary of the Fiji Medical Council filed 20/10/94 in Appeal HBA 0007/94). Whether or not the registration was validly made was the more relevant issue before me and not whether it in fact took place at all.

Third, it seems to me obvious that a Court will, abthe most exceptional circumstances, be extremely reluctant tant to add a party once Judgment has been delivered. Mr. Sharma suggested that evidence newly available can be placed before an appellate Court, I agree but for the purposes of this litigation the new evidence would, as it appears clear to me, have to be placed before the Fiji Court of Appeal.

As indicated in my Judgment of 10 J996 the precise legal status of the Plaintiff is that not at all easy to determine not leas least because of the extraordinary muddled way in which the Defendant has handled these (and I fear many other similar) matters. I have a degree of sympathy with the applicant. It is obviously a matter of important public interest that the status of foreign doctors in the position of the Plaintiff be resolved once and for all. But I do not believe that allowing the Applicant to intervene in this litigation at this stage is the answer.

The second limb of the Application depends on the success of the first. The first having failed the second must also fail. The Application is dismissed.

M.D. Scott
JUDGE

10 April 1997

Hbc0010d.96s