FIJI MILITARY FORCES
1st Defendant
and
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
2nd Defendant
P. Howard for the Plaintiff
0pt">S. Kumar for the Defendants
RULING
On 30 August 1999 I gavement for the Plaintiff against the Defendants in his action for wrongful dismissal. I awardawarded him damages
representing 6 years loss of wages but left it to counsel to quantify the exact loss.
Counsel have calculated the award at $130,096.24 but they disagree whether this sum shoe nett or gross, whether, ier, in other words,
it should be paid to the Plaintiff free of tax.
Mr. Howard submitted that since the Plaintiff’s employment waermined after he suffered an accident at work he should be d be paid
free of tax. Mr. Kumar on the other hand relied on Attorney-General v. Waisale Naicegulevu (FCA Reps 90/66) in which the Fiji Court of Appeal adopted the English approach which has been followed since British Transport Commission v. Gourley [1955] UKHL 4; [1956] AC 185; [1956] 2 WLR 41. He suggested that the tax which would have been paid by the Plaintiff had he not been dismissed, and instead had continue to work
for the 6 year period should be deducted from the sum awarded.
Perhaps some confusion arose because the Plaintiff lost his job following an accident but the cause of action which led to the award
of damages was not in personal injury but was in wrongful dismissal and no finding was sought or made that the accident which the
Plaintiff suffered in fact led to the physical deterioration which was thought, wrongly as it turned out, by the RFMF to provide
good grounds for his dismissal.
I rule that the sum awarded is to be paid to the Plaintiff subject to tax.
M.D. Scott Judge
28 July 00
HBC0011R.95S
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/91.html
