Prasad v Republic of Fiji (No.1) [2000] FJLawRp 49; [2000] 2 FLR 43 (23 August 2000)

[2000] 2 FLR 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

CHANDRIKA PRASAD

v

REPUBLIC OF FIJI & ATTORNEY-GENERAL (No. 1)

High Court Civil Jurisdiction
Gates, J
23 August, 2000
HBC 0217/00L

Barrister and solicitor - circumstances in which advocate can appear for argument purposes only without need to be briefed by solicitor or to file an appearance - O.67 r.3 High Court Rules

The applicant had filed an Originating Summons in person. Subsequently, Messrs S.B. Patel came on record as the applicant's solicitors, although no Notice of Appointment had been filed and served. The respondents objected to the appearances of Dr Williams and Mr Anu Patel. The court found there was no valid reason, bar a minor technical ground, for refusing representation to the applicant who required assistance of able counsel and the Court will invariably be assisted by counsel.

Held - In Fiji where the profession is fused, and in view of the complexity of the constitutional arguments, appearance of an advocate for argument purposes only need not require intervention of a solicitor for filing of a Notice of Appearance.

Appearances by advocates allowed.

No cases referred to in Ruling

Dr Williams and Anu Patel for the applicant.
Janmai Udit and Anare Tuilevuka for the respondents.

[Note: the background to the Ruling and the reasons are contained in the Judgment of 15 November, 2000, p 85].

23 August, 2000.

RULING

Gates, J

I allow Dr. Williams and Mr. Patel to appear as Counsel for the applicant in person. They appear as barristers though not briefed by Solicitors; unlike in England where the profession is separate, here in Fiji the profession is fused. In Fiji there is a right to counsel of choice and when an advocate only appears it would appear the rules do not demand the intervention of a solicitor or the filing of a Notice of a barrister's appearance for argument purposes.

Objections to appearances dismissed.

Marie Chan