Chandra v Lautoka City Council [2004] FJHC 403; HBC0101.2004L (14 April 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0101 OF 2004L

BETWEEN:

VIJAY CHANDRA
Plaintiff

AND:

LAUTOKA CITY COUNCIL
Defendant

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. S. Nacolawa
Counsel for the Defendant: No Appearance

Date of Hearing & Judgement: 14 April 2004

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court by way of Notice of Motion to be dealt with ex-parte, wherein the plaintiff seeks an order for an injunction restraining the defendant, Lautoka City Council, from terminating the plaintiff’s contract with the defendant and also for declaration that the purported termination of the contract is void being against the principles of natural justice and a further declaration that the plaintiff’s contract with the defendant is valid until the expiry of its natural term.

I have before me an affidavit of Vijay Chandra, the plaintiff, upon which he relies in support of the Notice of Motion.

The Notice of Motion is brought consequent upon the filing of a Writ of Summons dated 13^th April 2004. That Writ of Summons seeks various relief which includes an injunction, declarations, damages and interest.

When considering whether or not to grant injunctive relief whether it be on an interlocutory ex-parte basis or on a more permanent basis. The court is obliged to consider the issues as detailed by Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] UKHL 1; [1975] A.C. 396 at p. 406 His Lordship said and I quote:-

“The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial; but the plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated under the plaintiff’s undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where “the balance of convenience” lies.”

His Lordship further said that the tests to be applied are: -

1. Is there a triable issue;
2. Are damages an adequate remedy;
3. Where does the balance of convenience lie.
   

As I have said, the plaintiff’s claim in this matter is based upon the termination of a contract for the provisions of services for the defendant council.

The plaintiff in his Writ of Summons seeks relief by way of damages for breach of that contract or agreement.

In the circumstances of the case as there is before me affidavit evidence of the plaintiff and submissions have been placed before me by counsel, I cannot be satisfied that damages are not an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in this matter.

I am however satisfied that there is a triable issue but not being satisfied that damages are not an adequate remedy, I find it unnecessary to consider where the balance of convenience might lie and accordingly the application is refused.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

AT LAUTOKA
14 APRIL 2004