Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

National Bank of Fiji v Fiji Times Ltd [1994] FJHC 67; HBC1312d.94s (24 June 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC 01312 OF 1994

NATIONAL BANK OF FIJI
PLAINTIFF

AND

FIJI TIMES LTD.
1ST DEFENDANT

BRIAN O'FLAHERTY
2ND DEFENDANT

JALE MOALA
3RD DEFENDANT

YUNUS RASHID
4TH DEFENDANT

Counsel: Mr. Narsey for Plaintiff

Date of hearing: 24th June 1994
Date of decision: 24th June l994

DECISION OF PAIN J.

The plaintiff seeks an ex parte interlocutory injunction pursuant to Order 29 Rule 1 (2) "stopping the defendants from printing, publishing or reporting anything directly or indirectly relating to these false misleading and damaging reports of this $28m in unsecured loans". This refers to the writ concurrently issued against the defendants claiming damages for libel in respect of an article published in The Fiji Times on l6 June 1994.

I have heard careful argument on behalf of the Plaintiff.

An urgent decision is required and time does not permit a fully reasoned judgment.

In my view the application should be refused. The following is a brief summary of my reasons for this:

1. For an ex parte order full facts must be given to the Court. In this case there is little more than an allegation that the article is "false, misleading and damaging" but no particulars are given. The alleged falsity is not apparent from a reading of the article.
   
2. The papers do not establish "irreparable or serious mischief" which is required for an ex parte injunction. Counsel can only express concern that the paper might publish something further.
   
3. The terms of the order sought are unsatisfactory. An injunction to prevent publication of "anything directly or indirectly relating to these false, misleading and damaging reports" is too general. Such alleged falsity has not been identified.
   
4. Compelling reason would be necessary to grant an injunction interferring with freedom of expression.
   
5. The fact that the defendant could apply to set aside the order is no reason for making an order that is not justified on the papers.
   

The application is refused.

JUSTICE D.B. PAIN

HBC1312D.94S