Bell v Lal, in re Reciprocal Enforcement Judgments Act [2013] FJHC 70; Civil Action18.2013 (25 February 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
[CIVIL JURISDICTION]

CIVIL CASE NO: ACTION 18 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.

AND IN THE MATTER of a Judgment of the High Court of New Zealand obtained in Elaine Catherine Bell v Raina Lal and Renne Devina Sina Lal Civ: 2011-404-005601, [2012] NZHC 1993 dated the 8th day of August 2012.

BETWEEN:

ELAINE CATHERINE BELL
of 66 Wanganui Avenue, Ponsonby,
Auckland, New Zealand, Airline Concierge.
APPLICANT/JUDGMENT-CREDITOR

AND:

RAINA LAL
of 8 Bryan Road, Nadi, Fiji, Legal Practitioner.
1ST JUDGMENT-DEBTOR

AND:

RENEE DEVINA SINA LAL
of 73 Naivurevure Road, NLTB
Subdivision, Tamavua, Fiji, Legal Practitioner.
2ND JUDGMENT-DEBTOR

Ex-parte

Counsel
Ms Virisila Lidise for the Applicant/Judgment-Creditor

Date of Hearing : 20 February 2013
Date of Ruling : 25 February 2013

RULING

1. This is an application for registration of a Judgment delivered by the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland in Case No CIV-2011-404-005601 [2012] NZHC 1993 in the High Court of Fiji, Fiji.
   
2. The Judgment was resulted from the proceedings had between Elaine Catherine Bell, the plaintiff, on one part and Raina Lal and Renee Devina Sina Lal, the defendants, on the other. Mr Justice Duffy of the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, in his Judgment dated 08 August 2012, set-out reasons for the award of a sum of NZ $ 1,007,247.14 in favour of the plaintiff. Costs, too, have been awarded in a sum of NZ $ 21, 142.30 according to the Order sealed on 08 August 2012 by the Registry of the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland.
   
3. The application for registration of the Judgment in the High Court of Fiji in Lautoka has been made by way of summons supported by an affidavit dated 06 February 2013 deposed to by Mr Kamal Kumar, Legal Practitioner, on instructions received from Messrs Eugene St. John on behalf of the applicant/Judgment-Creditor-Elaine Catharine Bell, under Sections 3 and 7 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act [Cap. 39] (the Act) read with the Rules made by the Hon. Chief Justice under Section 6 of the Act.
   
4. Section 3 of the Act provides:
   

(1) Where a judgment has been obtained in the High Court in England or Ireland or in the Court of Session in Scotland the judgment creditor may apply to the Supreme Court in Fiji at any time within twelve months after the date of the judgment or such longer period as may be allowed by the said Supreme Court to have the judgment registered in the said Supreme Court and on any such application the said Supreme Court may, if in all the circumstances of the case it thinks it just and convenient that the judgment should be enforced in Fiji, and subject to the provisions of this section, order the judgment to be registered accordingly.

5. Application of the provisions of the Act, including those of Section 3 (1) above, has been extended to encompass a 'superior court' of other designated countries by Orders of the Governor-in-Council. New Zealand has been such a designated country of which Judgments of a 'superior court' of that country could be recognized for registration in the High Court of Fiji from 10 July 1925 under Section 7 (1) of the Act.
   
6. Section 7 (1) of the Act provides that:
   

Where the Governor-General is satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made by the legislature of any other country or territory of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom for the enforcement within such country or territory of judgments obtained in the Supreme Court of Fiji the Governor-General may by order declare that this Act shall extend to judgments obtained in a superior court in that country or territory in like manner as it extends to judgments obtained in a superior court in the United Kingdom and on any such order being made this Act shall extend accordingly.

7. I have considered the summons and the contents of the supporting affidavit. I am convinced that the High Court of New Zealand is a 'superior court' within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. In this regard, I also place reliance on the judgments of this court in the cases of Jones and Tozer v Mathieson [1990] 36 FLR 116 and Jones v Chatfield [1991] FJHC 42, where authoritative pronouncements were made to the effect that the High Court of New Zealand was a superior court for the purposes of the Act.
   
8. Provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act mandate this court to consider whether the registration of a judgment of a superior court of such a designated country could be excluded by the criteria set-out in that section.
   
9. Section 3 (2) provides that:
   

No judgment shall be ordered to be registered under this section if-

(a) the original court acted without jurisdiction; or

(b) the judgment debtor being a person who was neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the original court did not voluntarily appear or otherwise submit or agree to submit to the jurisdiction of that court; or

(c) the judgment debtor being the defendant in the proceedings was not duly served with the process of the original court and did not appear notwithstanding that he was ordinarily resident or was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of that court or agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of that court; or

(d) the judgment was obtained by fraud; or

(e) the judgment debtor satisfies the registering court either that an appeal is pending or that he is entitled and intends to appeal against the judgment; or

(f) the judgment was in respect of a cause of action which for reasons of public policy or for some other similar reason could not have been entertained by the registering court.

10. I have considered the authenticated sealed order of the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland dated 08 August 2012 and a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Duffy. There does not seem to be material to conclude that the Judgment sought to be registered by the applicant/Judgment-Creditor falls within any of the criteria set-out in Section 3 (2) of the Act; and/or, that the judgment has been satisfied by the Judgment-Debtor who appears to be currently resident in Fiji after submitting to the proceedings before the High Court of New Zealand.
    
11. I, accordingly, allow the summons dated 12 February 2013 of the applicant/Judgment- Creditor and grant leave for registration in this court of the Judgment in Elaine Bell v Raina Lal and Renee Devina Sina Lala CIV: 2011-404-5601 of the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland.
    
12. The applicant is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Judgment-Debtor as provided under the rules made under Section 6 of the Act forthwith. The Judgment-Debtor shall be entitled to apply for setting-aside of the registration of the Judgment not later than 15 April 2013.
    
13. Orders, accordingly. Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
    

Priyantha Nāwāna
Judge
High Court
Lautoka
Republic of Fiji Islands
25 February 2013