Patterson v Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation [2005] FJHC 89; HBC0039.2005 (20 April 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0039 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

TREVOR SEMITI PATTERSON
PATTERSON BROTHERS SHIPPING COMPANY LTD.
PLAINTIFFS

AND:

THE HON. MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT & CIVIL AVIATION
THE DIRECTOR, FIJI ISLANDS MARITIME SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
FIJI MARINE BOARD
DEFENDANTS

Mr. S. Leweniqila - For Plaintiffs
No appearance - For Defendants

DECISION ON STAY

This is a motion for stay pending appeal against a decision delivered on 5th January 2005 after an enquiry into the sinking of the vessel “M.V. OVALAU II”.

The applicants depose that they were not given notice of allegations or likelihood of adverse findings being made against them. They were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. They also allege that the Marine Inquiry had no powers under the Marine Act to penalise the company as it did. They depose that the Inquiry usurped the functions of the Minister who could take further actions against people upon receipt of report. The applicants depose that they have good prospects of appeal. The respondents did not appear at the hearing of the motion. I have no affidavits filed on their behalf. The principle applicable in cases of stay are set out in the submission filed. This is not a stay in the traditional sense of a monetary judgment. It was a marine inquiry into the sinking of a vessel. At heart of the appeal lie the provisions of the Marine Act and what the Inquiry could or could not do. It is a novel situation and I am not aware of any previous such applications where provisions of the Marine Act are considered.

The record of proceedings at the Inquiry are not before me. These records are likely to be lengthy as the proceedings had been conducted over a period of thirteen days. The applicants are likely to be prejudiced. There could be civil claims filed against the second applicant for losses based on findings or the Inquiry. The respondents on the other hand will suffer no prejudice because if the appeal is dismissed then the orders of the Inquiry could be put into effect.

Accordingly the decision of the Marine Inquiry so far as it affects the two applicants is stayed pending outcome of the appeal.

Jiten Singh
[JUDGE]

At Suva
20th April 2005