IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No.: HBC 217 of 2017

BETWEEN	:	EXPORT FREIGHT SERVICES (FIJI) LIMITED a limited liability 				company of Tamavua-i-Wai, Suva 
1ST PLAINTIFF

AND		:	THERESA CHAN of Tamavua-i-Wai, Suva, Executive Human resources 			Officer.
	2ND PLAINTIFF

AND		:	JANE CHAN of Lot 32 Nokonoko Road, Laucala Beach Estate, Suva, 				Domestic Duties
	DEFENDANT

Counsel		:	Mr. S. Fa for the Plaintiffs
				Mr. P. Katia for the Defendant
Date of Hearing         :	12 September, 2017 
Date of Judgment 	:	29 September, 2017 

JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1.	The 1st Plaintiff is a legal person and 2nd Plaintiff is the Head of Human Resource Department (HRD) of 1st Plaintiff.  The statement of claim as well as the Inter Partes Summons sought to restrain the Defendant from entering the premises of the 1st Plaintiff. The basis of the claim as well as the injunction was an allegation, that on 21.7.2017, Defendant had come to the office of the 1st Plaintiff regarding an error of payment of salary of her husband and had uttered certain derogatory words in the absence of 2nd Plaintiff. There after she had visited 2nd Plaintiff’s place of residence and had also got the error in the payment of cheque rectified. There is no evidence that she had entered and or instrumental in any interference with the activities of 1st and or 2nd Plaintiffs, even though affidavit in support state that she was ‘advised’ that this had happened in the past.

FACTS AND ANALYSIS 
2.	In the inter parties summons the following orders are sought;
	‘i. 	That the Defendant herein be restrained by way of an injunction 	from entering the premises of the 1st Plaintiff situated at Tamavua-		i-Wai, Suva and or interfering with the staff of the 1st Plaintiff.

	ii. 	That Defendant herein be restrained by way of injunction from 	entering the STF Work Site at Nadawa that belongs to the 1st 	Plaintiff, and /or interfering with staff of the 1st Plaintiff therein.

	iii. 	That Defendant herein be restrained by way of injunction from 	entering the Warehouse and West Office of the 1st Plaintiff located 	at Velovelo Road, Wairabetia, Lautoka and/or interfering with staff 	of the 1st Plaintiff therein.’

3.	All the orders sought are to restrain entering three specific premises and interference with 	the staff of the 1st Plaintiff.

4.	The first Plaintiff is a legal person and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff had taken a 	decision to institute an action against Defendant and or authorized the second Plaintiff to 	do so on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff against Defendant.

5.	So the Application for injunction is filed without any authority from the Board of 1st 	Plaintiff, by an employee of 1st Plaintiff.   It should also be noteworthy that any undertaking 	as to the damages needed to be given by the Plaintiffs  and paragraph 23 of the affidavit in 	support only state  as follows
	“The Plaintiffs undertakes (sic) to pay damages to the Defendant in event 	of any losses 	that she may incur as the result of this injunction”

6.	The 2nd Plaintiff cannot undertake any obligation on behalf of 1st Plaintiff, when she had not even been authorized by the Board of the 1st Plaintiff to institute an action jointly with 1st Plaintiff.

7.	2nd Plaintiff had failed to reveal her status to consider any undertaking as to the damages. 

8.	The Application for injunction needed to be struck off in limine as there was no authorization to institute action restraining entry of a person to the premises of 1st Plaintiff or interference with its employee. 

9.	 It is only 1st Plaintiff and or properly authorized person that can institute action for such an injunction. There is no evidence of such a decision being taken by the Board of the 1st Plaintiff or any instructions were received on behalf of 1st Plaintiff even to institute legal proceedings in the name of 1st Plaintiff or on behalf of its employees as the Head of HRD of 1st Plaintiff.  2nd Plaintiff being a mere employee of 1st Plaintiff cannot usurp the authority of an legal entity without any evidence to support and she cannot file an action for injunction which may result in a damages claim against an entity that has not authorized her to seek such an injunction, and or to institute action on behalf of its employees .

10.	Even if I am wrong, considering the affidavit in support the Plaintiff had averred hearsay evidence as to the incident of Defendant’s behaviour on 21st July, 2017. 2nd Plaintiff had neither heard nor seen such behaviour that is alleged in support of her injunctive order. There is an unsworn statement by an employee whose statement is annexed to the affidavit in support as “A”. The reason for not annexing   an affidavit obtained from that employee was not explained. 

11.	The perusal of statement would not reveal a serious interference that needed intervention of court and exercise of discretionary power of the court, by way of an injection. 

12.	In the sworn affidavit of Defendant she had denied that she behaved badly in the office, she states that when she was informed that the 2nd Plaintiff was not at the office she and her husband had visited her home the same day and had obtained her signature to rectify the error in the cheque and she had also visited that office again on the same day and the error was rectified. There was no allegation of Defendant’s behavior when she visited the same office the second time after obtaining signature of 2nd Plaintiff.

13.	It is not appropriate to consider conflicting evidence at this juncture on available evidence before me since it is at interlocutory stage. (See American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  [1975] 1 All ER 504 at510 Per Lord Diplock)

14.	The Plaintiff is alleging an incident happened on 21.7.2017 and relied on hearsay evidence and an unsworn statement of a subordinate employee, in order to seek restrictions on entering the premises belonging to the 1st Plaintiff, as well as for an order not to interfere with employees.

15.	As stated earlier it is only 1st Plaintiff that can seek such an order and for that purpose there should be some form of consent expressed by the Board of the 1st Plaintiff and without such consent in my mind no serious question to be tried to consider a permanent injunction restraining Defendant from entering the premises of 1st Plaintiff including the office of the 1st Plaintiff and this application needs to be struck off. 

16.	Even if am wrong on that, assuming that there is a serious question to be tired at the hearing, the balance of convenience favours refusal of injunction. Defendant as a wife of one of the directors can enter the premises of 1st Plaintiff without interference with the work of the entity. There is no evidence that due to her alleged conduct the work ethic or moral of the workers have affected. It is only the 2nd Plaintiff who is Head of HRD, seeks to restrain the Defendant entering premises of 1st Plaintiff or interference with employees of 1st Defendants at three different locations. There is no evidence of any incident in these premises other than incident alleged on 21.7.2017 at 2nd Plaintiff’s office. 

CONCLUSION
17.	There is no consent from 1st Plaintiff to seek injunctive relief in this action. The evidence before me do not indicate serious question to be tried for a permanent injunction against the Defendant. Vital facts contained in the affidavit in support are hearsay.  Application for injunction is struck off. The cost of the application is summarily assessed at $1,000.

FINAL ORDERS
a.	Application for injunction is struck off.
b.	Cost is summarily assessed at $1,000.

Dated at Suva this 29th day of September, 2017.

							................................................
							Justice Deepthi Amaratunga
							High Court, Suva