“Upon examination of the document it is clear tt suffers again from undue ndue verbosity and continues to contravene the High Court
Rules, in that evidence is pleaded in various paragraphs.”
At paragraph 8, he says:-
“I say that the Plaintiff’s delay in comg with the previous directions of the Court has caused the the Fourth Defendant to suffer
unnecessary costs and expenses. Addilly, to amend the Stat Statement of Claim in accordance with the High Court rules has restricte
Fourth DefenDefendant fromerly responding to the Plaintiff’s claim.”
At the hearing of the application Mr. G. Leung for the Fouefendant submitted that that the amended statement of claim wasst as long
as the origioriginal statement of claim, that the amended statement was verbose and pleaded evidence, and that the defects were evident
on a cursory nation of the pleadings. Ms. Saumatua for the Third Defendant supported Mung’s submissions. There was noarance on beha behalf of the Plaintiff, nor were any
sany submissions filed.
Order 18, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules provides:
> “(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, and rules 9, 10 an every pleading must contaiontain and contain only a statement in a
summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence
by which those facts are to be proved and the statement must be as brief as the nature of the case admits.” /b>
Order 18, 18(1) provides:
>
“The Court mayny stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsemersement of any merit in the
action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement on the ground that -
........ (c). (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action...
The paragraphs in question are paragraphs 10, 12, 15, 22, 23, 24, 6, 27, 28(v), 28(vi), 29(iv), 42(i) and 42(ii) of the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim.
These paragraphs clearly offend the rule in Order 18 Rule 6 of the High Court Rules. One example in paragraph 2ch states:
b>“In 1985 twenty yearer the Native Land Commission sitting in Lomaloma in 1965, the late Ratu Nelesoni Delailomailomaloma instructed
the law firm of Tevita Fa and Associates to inquire into the matter and to proceed to court. However MesTevita Fa and Aand Associates after looking at the matter in some
depth advised that it was an expensive exercise and without money it was best to find some othys of resolving the problems.”
The other paragraphs listed in the summons to strike out are afflicted with a similar difficulty.
I am satisfied that these paragraphs plead evidence and not fact, and that the result is such as to render the task of filing a defence
difficul for the Defendants.
For these reasons I as I allow the application to amend the stat of claim by striking out paragraphs 10, 12, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28(v), 28(vi), 29), 29(iv), 42(i) and 42(ii) of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
The Plaintiff must file amended statement of claimuding these paragraphs within 14 days. The Plaintiff must pay tur Fourth Defendants
cnts costs of the application within 14 days to be taxed if not agreed.
Nazhat Shameemn>
JUDGE
At Suva
14 January 2000
HBC0226D.99S
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/5.html
