PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2006 >> [2006] FJHC 77

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Lautoka Stevedoring Company Ltd v Ports Terminal Ltd [2006] FJHC 77; HBC274.2004L (27 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION


CIVIL ACTION NO. 274 OF 2004L


NO. 198 OF 2006


BETWEEN


LAUTOKA STEVEDORING COMPANY LIMITED
Plaintiff


AND


PORTS TERMINAL LIMITED
Defendant


Appearances: No Appearance for plaintiff
Messrs Lateef & Lateef Solicitors for defendant


Hearing: 27 September 2006
Decision: 27 September 2006


EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT


[1] This action is listed for hearing this morning. The plaintiff is not present nor is its solicitor. The hearing date was fixed on 31 July 2006 and since then the plaintiff has not given any indication that it would not be proceeding with the hearing this morning. Earlier this morning learned counsel Mr. H. A. Shah appeared for Mr. Iqbal Khan, plaintiff’s solicitor on record and said if $2,000.00 odd dollars was paid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would withdraw the claim – that offer was not accepted. The case was stood down for hearing at the end of the list. When re-called, there was no appearance for the plaintiff.


[2] The lawyers engaged in trials in the Lautoka High Court are well aware that trial fixtures, once fixed, will only be adjourned or vacated on the showing of strong justifiable reasons – that is the only way that the Court, lawyers and their clients can effectively deal with the back-log.


[3] In this instance there is no appearance by plaintiff and no notice to defendant at all that the case would not be proceeding today. I have had to put off a personal injury matter pending for some time, to deal with this case. The non appearance of the plaintiff today is inexcusable. I have acceded to Ms Bale’s application that the action be dismissed. There are also procedural defects which remain uncured – no notice of intention to proceed was ever filed and non-compliance of Order 34 HCR by the plaintiff. The claim is also very unlikely to succeed. The action is struck out and dismissed with costs to the defendant assessed in the sum of $1, 500.00 to be paid in 14 days. The action will not be re-instated or restored to cause list unless there is an application on merits.


Gwen Phillips
JUDGE


At Lautoka
27 September 2006


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2006/77.html