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

Reddy v Public Service Appeal Board [2000] FJHC 17; Hbj0040x.1999s (28 January 2000)

Fiji Islands - Reddy v Public Service Appeal Board - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

JUDICIAL REVIEW

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: HBJ 40 OF 1999

ass=MsoNormal alal align=center style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

BETWEEN:

MUNSAMY REDDY

Applicant

/span>

PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD

1^st Respondent

AND:

MINISTRHEALTH

2^nd Respondent

AND:

span lang=EN-GB>ELINA RAIWALUI

3^rd Respondent

COUNSEL: Mr M. Reddy in person

Mr E. Walker for 1^st and 2^nd Respondents

Hearing: 19^th January

Ruling: 28^th January 2000

DECISION

On 3^rd December 1999, I granted leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the Public Service Appeal Board refusing his appeal against the appointment of Elina Raiwalui as executive officer at the St. Giles Hospital. The matter was adjd for meor mention to set a hearing date on 13^th January 2000. On that day, the Appl made made an application tow Mr Suresh Charan to appear with him as his friend to assist him in his submissions.

<

This is my decision on that application. Mr Suresh Chara formerly trly the second Applicant. However, I ruledeave stage, that he had no d no standing, and refused him leave to apply for judicial review. The Applicansamy Reddy appy appli haveharan present in t in Chambers to assist him. In his written submisse sthe states thas that he is only a senior clerical officeat he cannot afford a lawyer, that Mr Charan is well-versedersed in legal matters (having appeared in the Supreme Court) and that Mr n would simply appear to quto quietly advise Mr Reddy on the conduct of the case. He cited the of R v.>R v. Leicester City of Justices ex parte Barrow (1991) 3 WLR 368 in support of his application.

Mr E. Walker for the Respondents left the matter to the discretion of the court. However he stated that he would object ifharan made submissions on M on Mr Reddy’s behalf.

Mr Reddy, in his oral application said that Mr Charan would be making oral submissions on Mr Reddy’s behalf, if the court granted this application.

There is no doubt that the court has a discretion to allow unrepresented litigants to be aanied by a “friend.” In Reicester City Juty Jusy Justices and another ex parte Barrow and Another (supra) the appellants had appeared before justices on summons issued by the local authority for liability orders for non-payment of community orders. The appellants applied,ughrough a solicitor to allow a friend to sit with them to give advice and assistance. The justrefused the applicpplication.

In proceedingedings for judicial review the appellants enged this decision. The DivisiCourt held that that there was no right to a friend.&nnd. On ap the Court of Appeal peal held that fairness dictated that the lants shts should have been afforded all reasonable facilities to enable him to exercise hiht of audience and that the justices should have allowed thed the application in the interests of fairness.

This application is not an application for representation. It is an applon to allow alow a person tend as a friend, to take noke notes and to give advice. It is an appion about the the right to be heard.

In McKenzie v. McKenzie (1970) 3 WLR 472 Sachs LJ said:

“It is .... in the public interest that litigants should be seen to all available aid in conduconducting cases in court surroundings, which must of their nature to then seem both difficult and strange.”

In R v. Leicester JJ (supra) Lord Donaldson referr an unreported decision of the Court of Appeal, In re G (A Minor) (unreportedorted 10 July 1991), in which a judge, sitting in chambers refused to allow a party to be assisted by a solicitor who was not on the record. Lord Donaldson said:>

“Who, other than a party to the pdings, his solicitor on the record or counsel, shall be pere permitted to attend proceedings in chambers is always a matter for the discretion of the judge ... and this court ... declined to interfere with that discretionary decision. Being a chambers matthis dhis decision does not assist.”

Lord Donaldson went on to say that all courts are open to the public, and that a party to the proceedings has a right to present his own case in any way he thinks appropriate. Therefore, thht to a “frie“friend” is specifically a right which may be exercised without leave in open court.

In Chambers however no such right exists. Thee in chambers has a diia diion to allow persons other than parties to the proceedings,ings, to attend hearings.

This judicial review application has been conducted in chambers. The substantive hearing will be conducted on the basis ofdavits and written submissimissions.

In all the circumstances I see no reason to depaom the normal procedure of allowing only parties to attend with counsel. Mr Walker foer for theondepondents has agreed that submissions may be in writing. Mr will then be able to s to seek all assistance he requires from Mr Charan or anyone else, i preparation of those submissions. Ia later stag stage there here arises a need for oral submissions, Mr Reddy may renew his application.

This application to allow Mr Charan to appear with Mr Reddy in chambers tost him, is therefore refused.

Nazhat Sh

JUDGE

At Suva

28^th January 2000

HBJ0040X.99S

---

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/17.html