|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Copyright]
[Privacy]
[Disclaimers]
[Help]
[Feedback]
Fiji Islands - 2000 FLR Volume 2 - Practice Directions |
THE FIJI LAW REPORTS
of the cases decided in
THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
in
THE COURT OF APPEAL and in
THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
2000
VOLUME 2
This volume may be cited as "(2000) 1 FLR"
EDITORS:
Madam Justice Nazhat Shameem, High Court of Fiji
Mr. Chen Bunn Young, President Fiji Law Society
Published by: The Institute of Justice and Applied Legal Studies The University of the South Pacific, 2004
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The following are practice directions issued by the High Court.
PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 1/2000 (26 JANUARY 2000)
Order 34 Pre-trial Conferences and Setting Down for Trial
It is apparent that pre-trial conferences are not being carried out in accordance with the High Court Rules. The purpose and efficacy of holding such conferences, an important interlocutory step, is thereby lost.
The parties arrive at Court for the trial with many matters, which should have been agreed, not agreed. Facts, which on a realistic appraisal by counsel are no longer in issue, have therefore still to be proved by witnesses and exhibits unnecessarily. Documents or exhibits not to be challenged should also have been agreed, to avoid time-wasting proof.
Summonses for setting down for trial now go before a Judge [see Chief Registrar's Practice Direction 27 July 19981.
The Judge will review the case position pursuant to powers provided under Ord. 34, r.2(6).
In particular the Judge will be inquiring of Counsel or litigants:
1. Whether a Pre-trial conference has taken place and if it has been adequate. This means the judge will look into the question of whether the conference has been adequate also.
2. Whether proper discovery has been given and completed.
3. The Possibility of further admissions, agreement on some evidence, which is not seriously challenged, and which could shorten the trial.
4. The number of witnesses to be called. 5. The names of witnesses.
6. Whether there are any difficulties with the availability of witnesses, or difficulties of attendance.
7. The length of trial - a re-examination of the earlier estimate, a more realistic estimation.
8. The legal issues; and the desirability of and need for written submissions. 9. Whether the trial is ready to proceed.
Only when the trial judge is satisfied that the case is ready for trial in all these aspects, will a trial date be allocated.
If counsel is unprepared, or unable to assist with these issues at the hearing of the summons to enter for trial, the judge may decline to hear counsel, decline to enter for trial, or he may enter for trial (if there has been unnecessary delay by either or any litigant to the proceedings) and may consider this failure to comply with Ord. 34 when he comes to consider an order of costs at the end of the trial [Ord. 62, r.10].
_________________________________
High Court
LAUTOKA
PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 2 OF 2000 (29 March 2000)
Requirement for Counsel to be briefed
Solicitors who cannot themselves attend Court or Chambers must brief another Counsel to appear for them. Presently, Clerks arrive at the Chambers Court, and when one of their principal's cases is called, only then attempt to brief Counsel and at that orally.
Unsurprisingly, and quite often, Counsel misunderstands for which litigant he or she appears, knows nothing of the history of the case or what happened on the last mention date, and can provide no adequate explanation why some pendant matter has not been attended to since the last mention. This reflects badly on Counsel in the Chambers Court. Members of the public or waiting litigants may mistakenly consider such Counsel incompetent, when in fact the blame rests with the briefing principal for lateness and inadequacy of briefing. None of this assists the Court in attempting to make necessary interlocutory orders, fix hearing dates, and move on the litigation. Often new dates, observations or queries from the Court, are not communicated back to the principal.
From 3 April 2000 onwards, the Court will expect Counsel to be properly briefed when a case is called on, and that Counsel will not appear in a matter unless properly briefed. "Properly briefed" means that Counsel is the holder of written instructions which as a minimum include:
1. The names of the parties in the entitlement or heading of the case.
2. The case number.
3. The Court, date and time for appearance.
4. The litigant for whom Counsel is briefed to appear, and in what capacity.
5. The names of the Solicitors for the other litigants.
6. The nature of the relevant application before the Court, which summons or motions, and its date.
7. What happened on the last Court date and what was ordered.
Shoes must be black or navy-blue.
8. What it is that Counsel is instructed to seek.
9. The available dates of the principal or of Counsel who is to conduct the hearing which is to be fixed.
Counsel briefed should report back to the legal practitioner who briefed him or her by letter with the result, orders, observations, and dates of adjournment. At the moment the uniformed principal telephones the Registry to ask one of the Court Clerks to get out the file and read back what happened. This is a task that should not be burdened routinely on the Registry staff.
If proper minimum briefing and reporting is done, cases which are mentioned time and time again, will not need to be so often mentioned, and the time of the Court (as well as of Counsel and litigants) will not be wasted. Case management is essential in any Court and it is particularly necessary at the Lautoka High Court.
Barristers were not allowed to appear in Court without a brief and it is easy to see why professionally this should have been so, and still is the rule in England. Solicitors are asked to ensure therefore that their clients, the litigants, are represented either by themselves or by Counsel properly and professionally briefed. The Court will decline to hear from Law Clerks or from Counsel who do not hold a proper brief.
__________________________________
GENERAL GUIDELINES ON COURT DRESS (3 February 2000)
Concern has been expressed about dress standards amongst some legal practitioners attending court. Legal Practitioners are expected to dress well, that is, with dignity and decorum and in a manner that would enhance the image and culture of our court system.
Set out below are general guidelines on court dress. However, the final arbiter of what constitutes proper dress is the presiding judge or magistrate of each court.
1. MAGISTRATES' COURT
Men: Dark suits with shirts of white, pale-blue or grey colour.
Shoes may be black or navy-blue. Sandals may be worn with pocket sulus and jackets which must be black, charcoal-grey or navy-blue.
Women: Dark suits with shirts ofwhite, pale blue or grey colour. Shirts must be buttoned to the neck.
Skirts must be worn below knee-length. Tailored black trousers may also be worn.
Black or navy-blue dresses with matching jackets.
Black, charcoal-grey or navy-blue sulus and saris may be worn.
2. HIGH COURT
Dark suits, white shirts, bands on wing collar or jabot on high neck, black shoes and dark socks. Women may wear black dress with a white high collar, or black suits with a white high-necked shirt with bands. Dark pocket sulus and black saris may be worn. Sandals may only be worn with pocket sulus. Skirts must be worn below knee-length. Women may wear tailored black trousers. Wigs and gowns must be worn.
3. COURT OF APPEAL AND SUPREME COURT
As in the High Court but without wigs and bands
______________________________________________
CHIEF REGISTRAR'S PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 1 OF 2000
(17 March 2000)
Affidavits
The making of affidavits is governed:
(i) in the High Court by Order 41 of the 1988 High Court Rules;
(ii) In the Magistrates Courts (and Small Claims Tribunals) by Order V Part III of the Magistrates Courts Rules (Cap.14)-
When an affidavit is sworn it is essential that the name of the commissioner for oaths be readily identifiable. The signature of the Commissioner should preferably be followed by a rubber-stamped endorsement giving the Commissioner's name and address. Alternatively, the Commissioner's name must be written below the signature in block capitals.
Affidavits the jurats of which do not comply with the above direction are not to be accepted in Court Registries form now on.
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/indices/cases/2000_FLR_Vol2Practice Directions.html