Low v NBF Asset Management Bank [2000] FJHC 117; Hbc0066x.2000s (31 October 2000)

Fiji Islands - Low v NBF Asset Management Bank - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO: HBC 0066 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

JOHN THOMAS LOW

: 1"> & VASITI NAIKELEKELEVESI LOW

Appellants

AND:

NBF ASSET MANAGEMENT BApan>

Respondent

Mr A. Tikaram for Appellants

Mr W. Clarke for Respondent

Hearing: 26th October 2000

Decision: 31st Octob00

DECISION

The Appellants, John Thomas Low and Vasiti Naikelekelevesi Low have appealed against the decision of thurt refusing an injunction tion restraining the Bank from exercising its powers of sale conferred by a mortgage on CT 14689. The property, which is a dwelling house at 8 Niranjan Street, Tamavua, is registered in the names of the Appellants.

On 2nd October 2000, I ordered a stay of proceedings conditional on the payment into court of 51.86 within 14 days. That sum was not paid into court with within 14 days.

The Appellants now make a further application, to extend the 14 day time limit for the paying of the sum into court, to 3 months fro October 2000.

In support of the application Mr Tikaram for the Appellants s out that no specific time frame was given for the payment into court, until an enquiry wary was made at the High Court Registry. The supporting affidavit of John Thomas Low states that he is arranging a loan with the Habib Bank for the sum of $18,351.81 and that the loan will take time before it is approved.

Mr Clarke for the Respondent opposes any further extension of time. He submitted that the Appellants have discussed a re-financing of the loan since February 2000, and that further delay prejudices the Bank because the interest of the outstanding loan amount escalates daily. He said that the Appellants were fortunate to be ordered to pay $18,351.86, because the full (disputed) amount owed on the mortgage is now in excess of $380,000. He asked for the application to be dismissed.

I consider that the delay continues to prejudice the Respondent. Not only is it unable to enjoy the fruits of its judgment, but it iing the very real possibiliibility that, if it succeeds in its defence in the substantive case, the total amount owed in loans and advances will never be covered by the price obtained on the sale of the property. A further delay of 3 months will cause further prejudice to the Respondent, in this regard.

However, I accept that the Appellant was never formally told of the 14 day time limit in which the undisputed sum of $18,351.86 must be deposited in court. That may well have caused some delay in the organisation of financing from an alternative source.

In the circumstances I extend the time for payment into court by 14 days from the date of this decision.

Costs are in the cause.

Nazhat Shameem

JUDGE

At Suva

31st October 2000

Hbc0066x.00s