In The Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
At Suva

Appeal # 35 of 2006, and 36 of 2006.

Between:

Rajendra Deo Prasad
Appellant

And:

Land Transport Authority
1st Respondent

And:

Prem Chand and Sons T/A Dwarka Buses Limited
Prem Chand and Sons Limited
Parmod Enterprises
Interested Parties

Appearances/Representations:

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Prakash 
For LTA: Mr Seremaia Waqainabete
For Interested Party: Mr Viren Kapadia (Parmod Enterprises)

Ruling

Introduction

These Appeals were heard by the previous Tribunal ( Mr Bale) on 13th April 2009 and the judgment for these matters were on notice.

Appeal No. 35 of 2006

Appeal against the decision by LTA made on 16th August 2006 whereby it granted an application for transfer of a Road Permit (Road Route License 12/23/52) from Prem Chand and Sons T/A Dwarka Buses Limited to Parmod Enterprises Limited and also approved the re-issue of Road Route License 12/23/52. 

13 grounds of appeal were listed in the notice of appeal filed on 30th August 2006. 

Appeal No. 36 of 2006

Appeal against the decision by LTA made on 16th August 2006 whereby it granted an application for transfer of a Road Permit (Road Route License 12/23/24) from Prem Chand and Sons T/A Dwarka Buses Limited to Parmod Enterprises Limited.

7 grounds of appeal were listed in the notice of appeal filed on 30th August 2006. Which are briefly summarised as follows:

The issues before the Tribunal

The powers of the Tribunal are stated in Section 46 (2) that "on an appeal under this Part the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal or make such order as it thinks just and reasonable in the circumstances directing the Authority to issue, transfer, or cancel any licence, certificate or permit, or to impose, vary, or remove any condition or restriction in respect of a licence, certificate or permit, and the Authority shall comply with that order." And under Section 46 (3) "Upon the determination of an appeal under this section the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks just with the respect to the costs of the appeal, and any person to whom any such costs are awarded may recover the amount of those costs in any court of competent jurisdiction, as a debt due from the person against whom those costs are awarded."

Determination

From the submissions made to the Tribunal it is noted that the Appellants were of the view that to clear the appeals they intended to dispose the matters without costs. They sought that the Costs be waived. The Respondents Counsel argued that they incurred costs in the matters which included transport costs, airfares and billeting in Labasa. They sought a minimum of $400 per appeal. Which would mean total costs of $4800.00 for all the 12 matters. Mr Kapadia for the interested party submitted compensation should be provided to some extent. Costs was not a gain. Mr Kapadia sought $500 per appeal. Which would mean a total cost for the 12 appeals of $6000.00. 

This Tribunal is in complete agreement with the view of the Court in Safari Lodge Fiji Ltd v Rosedale Ltd [2008] FJHC 139; Civil Action 319.1999 (5 February 2008) wherein it stated that "When parties commence litigation, they must do so in a full awareness that litigation has costs. They must be prepared to pay the costs of the litigation they commence. Even if they are confident that their litigation will succeed, no party can ever be confident that her/his litigation costs will be wholly recoverable from the unsuccessful party. Indemnity costs are not generally awarded and even if they are they rarely if ever cover the whole of the real costs of litigation. The Plaintiffs/Applicants must be taken as having budgeted to cover their own costs and to cover the contingency that in the event of their losing the case, they would have to pay costs of the other side. They must also be taken as having been aware that at intervals along the way costs order/s may be made and could be made against them. Generally, therefore, a costs order could not be put forward as ending a party's substantive claim." [my underlining]

Costs were incurred by the other parties as a result of the Appellant filing the appeals and discontinuing it. The Appellant cannot simply wash his hands of the matters by discontinuing the matters and saying that the appeals are being cleared and no costs should be awarded. The other parties are quiet rightly seeking costs for their time, travel and other expenses incurred as a result of the initiation of the appeal by the Appellant.

The Tribunal has noted the submissions made by the parties. Having noted those submissions this Tribunal finds that a fair assessment of the costs in the matters would be $250.00 per appeal. 

For the reasons and findings given herein this Tribunal Orders as follows:

(a)	That the Appeals # 18 of 2005, 19 of 2005, 20 of 2005, 21 of 2005, 22 of 2005, 23 of 2005, 24 of 2005, 25 of 2005, 29 of 2005, 30 of 2005, 22 of 2006 and 23 of 2006 are discontinued.

(b)	Appellant to pay LTA (Respondent) $250.00 for each appeal which is a total of $3000.00 for all the 12 appeals discontinued as costs within 30 days.

(c)	Appellant to pay Interested Party (Pramod Enterpises) $250.00 for each appeal which is a total of $3000.00 for all the 12 appeals discontinued as costs within 30 days.

Right to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Land Transport Authority Tribunal

24th April 2015