Chand v Goodman Fielder International (Fiji) Ltd [2005] FJHC 689; HBC0098.2005L (8 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0098 OF 2005L

BETWEEN:

SUBHAS CHAND

Plaintiff

AND:

GOODMAN FIELDER INTERNATIONAL (FIJI) LIMITED
Defendant

Mr. J. Boseiwaqa for Mr. V. Naidu for the plaintiff
No Appearance for the defendant

Date of Hearing: 8 November 2005
Date of Judgment: 8 November 2005

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

This matter was before the Court for assessment of damages with respect for the plaintiff’s claim which was commenced by writ of summons and the statement of claim dated the 11^th April 2005. No defence was filed in the writ of summons and default judgment was entered on the 8^th June 2005.

A summons for assessment of damages was filed and served on the defendant on the 12^th September 2005. The defendant does not appear.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant company as a salesman. In or about August 1999, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff’s employment on the allegation the plaintiff has stolen 1 x 10kg of chicken feed.

The defendant dismissed the plaintiff without notice and caused the plaintiff to be charged by the police and brought before the Lautoka Magistrates Court commenced a charge of larceny by servant contrary to section 274 of the Penal Code. Those proceedings were held before the Magistrates Court and judgment was delivered by that Court on the 8^th February 2001 when the Learned Magistrate acquitted the plaintiff with respect to the charge.

The plaintiff gives evidence before this Court that the time of his dismissal he was in receipt of income at the rate of $111.81 net per week and that he would receive a bonus of $1,000.00. In addition, the plaintiff claims damages for the false allegation in the manner of his dismissal. He says that he has been unable to obtain for employment, as he has not been furnished with reference by the defendant and as a result of the humiliation, proceedings are before the Magistrates Court.

Issues relevant were considered by the Supreme Court of the Fiji Islands in Central Manufacturing Company Limited v Yashni Kent – Civil App. No. CBV0010 of 2002, there the Supreme Court upheld the entitlement of the employee as to damages for the public humiliation in the manner of his dismissal. The Supreme Court in doing so reduced the award of the Court of Appeal from $30,000.00 by way of damages of $5,000.00.

The plaintiff in this instance whilst holding a lesser position in the company than the employee in Central Manufacturing Company has certainly been humiliated and suffered extensively as a result of the charges laid against him at the instigation of the defendant and his having been dragged through in the Magistrates Court and subsequently been acquitted.

He does in my opinion have an entitlement to damages for the way in which he was dismissed and the humiliating treatment he received by being charged for the offence for which he was blamed at the time.

Whilst his position was perhaps less than I have said that the employees in Central Manufacturing Company Limited, the humiliation was no less and the impact perhaps even great. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate for there being award the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) by way of damages.

The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs which I assess in the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00).

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
8 November 2005