IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

CIVIL ACTION NO HBC 76 OF 2001S

Between:

RUPENI RAVONU
Plaintiff

and

FIJI RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
Defendant

N. Vere for the Plaintiff
S. Matawalu for the Defendant

DECISION

The Plaintiff, a former Captain of the Fiji 7’s rugby team has several times coached the team. He coached the team to Hong Kong in 1981 and 1985 and again in 1996, 1997 and 1998. He was re-appointed Coach in October 2000.

In February 2001 the team went to Wellington. Controversy arose when it was alleged that the team, which had been sponsored by Vodafone, wore the wrong Jerseys when they played.

Following the team’s return to Fiji the Plaintiff was dismissed as the team’s Coach. On 21 February 2001 he caused an Originating Summons to be issued and this was followed by the present application for interim injunction relief. The Plaintiff principally seeks an order re-instating him as coach and preventing the Defendant from appointing any one else as Coach in his place. In the Summons, he also seeks damages.

In Support of the application Mr Vere submitted that the Defendant has breached the Plaintiffs coaching contract which is not due to expire until next July. He says that the Plaintiff has been much distressed by what has occurred. He wants to be re-instated.

In answer, Mr Matawalu submitted that while the Plaintiff was seeking re-instatement by the Court he had also publicly given support to his successor as coach. This inconsistency, Mr Matawalu argued, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Mr Matawalu also suggested that even if the Plaintiff had a case, which was not conceded, then damages were an adequate remedy. Mr Vere replied that the assessment of such damages would be a very difficult exercise. He argued that there was a serious matter to be tried and that therefore an injunction should be granted.

The basic principles governing the grants of interlocutory injunctions are well settled. They are helpfully explained in the notes in the White Book to Order 29.

While I accept that the Plaintiff appears to have an arguable claim and that the assessment of damages might not be entirely straightforward it must be remembered that only in exceptional cases will a mandatory injunction be granted, especially one which disturbs the status quo. It is also unusual for an injunction to be granted to fulfill a contract of employment (Ehrman v Bartholomew [1898] 1 Ch. 671.). I also bear in mind that the Plaintiffs contract is disputed by the Defendant and that it is, even on the Plaintiffs case, due to expire in a matter of months.

In all circumstances I do not think it would be right to order the Plaintiff’s reinstatement. If in due course his action for breach of contract is successful then damages will be awarded to him. The present application fails and is dismissed.

M.D. Scott
Judge

14 March 2001.