{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f37\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Omega;}{\f38\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f39\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f41\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;} {\f42\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f43\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f44\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f45\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;} {\f46\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255; \red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{ \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{ \s1\ql \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f37\fs24\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{ \s2\qc \li0\ri0\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f37\fs28\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tblind0\tblindtype3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\qj \li720\ri720\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0 \b\i\f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Block Text;}{\s16\qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Body Text;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 header;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid358074\rsid1009662 \rsid3234454\rsid3618634\rsid5076876\rsid6246550\rsid9139426\rsid12922052\rsid13053105\rsid15362138}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6829;}{\info{\title IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI}{\author Roselyn}{\operator freriks_k} {\creatim\yr2008\mo11\dy27\hr16\min22}{\revtim\yr2009\mo1\dy19\hr16\min52}{\version8}{\edmins14}{\nofpages6}{\nofwords2629}{\nofchars14987}{\*\company Judicial Department}{\nofcharsws17581}{\vern16393}{\*\password 00000000}}{\*\xmlnstbl } \paperw12240\paperh15840\margl1800\margr1800\margt1440\margb720\gutter0 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\grfdocevents0\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow0 \jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot1009662 \fet0{\*\wgrffmtfilter 013f}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\headerr \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\insrsid12922052 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs18\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid15362138 4}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\cs18\insrsid12922052 \par }\pard \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid12922052 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI \par AT SUVA \par CIVIL JURISDICTION}{\b\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC 470J OF 2002S}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 BETWEEN}{\fs24\insrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 FOODS PACIFIC LIMITED \par }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid9139426 FIRST PLAINTIFF \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 AND}{\fs24\insrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 MARINE LIMITED \par }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 SECOND PLAINTIF \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 AND}{\fs24\insrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 METROMIX CONCRETE CO. LTD. \par }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 DEFENDANT}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }{\fs24\insrsid5076876 Counsel for the Plaintiffs}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 :}{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 G. O\rquote Driscoll:}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Driscoll & Seruvatu \par }{\fs24\insrsid5076876 Counsel for the Defendant:}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 C. B. Young:}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Young & Associates \par \par Date of Judgment}{\fs24\insrsid358074 :}{\fs24\insrsid358074\charrsid5076876 11}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 May 2005 \par \par Time of Judgment}{\fs24\insrsid358074 :}{\fs24\insrsid358074\charrsid5076876 9.30}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 a.m.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 JUDGMENT}{\b\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \s2\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \b\f37\fs28\ul\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \f0\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The 1st plaintiff in the registered proprietor of all that piece and parcel of land contained in Native Lease No. 16086 and described as Lot 30, Plan S1435, Wailada Sub-division, Lami.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The second plaintiff is described as a Sister Company to the 1st plaint iff and is the registered proprietor of the piece and parcel of land contained in Crown Lease No. 5417 and described as Lot 2 on Plan S.1443, Wailada Industrial Sub-division.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Both plaintiffs are engaged in the business of processing and packaging of food materials from their respective plants constructed on their property. \par \par The defendant is the registered proprietor of all that piece and parcel fo land contained in Crown Lease No. 5407 and described as Lot 9 on Plan S.1443, Wailada Industrial Sub-division.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The defendant\rquote s property lie adjacent to the plaintiffs\rquote .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The defendant operates a factory for manufacturing concrete products, supplying ready mixed concrete as well as supplying gravel and sand. \par \par The plaintiffs claim that because of the nature of the defendant\rquote s business, it creates dust pollution in the form of dust clouds which are directly diffused into the atmosphere and spreading into the surrounding areas including into the plaintiffs \rquote properties.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The basis of the plaintiffs action is set out at par agraph 12 of its Statement of Claim as follows: \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 12.\tab The continuous dust pollution over the area has meant that the food production in the plaintiffs\rquote factories has been contaminated.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 This has created a real threat for the plaintiffs in their capacity as businesses.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 There is also a substantial health risk associated because of the dust pollution for the Consumers of the plaintiffs\rquote products.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 This is the plaintiffs\rquote Summons for injunction to restrain the defendant from further permitting or causing to permit dust which they allege emanate from the defendant\rquote s business operation, to travel and settle in the plaintiffs\rquote properties.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15362138 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Plaintiffs\rquote Argument \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par The affidavit by James Adeshwar Nand, the Factory Manager to the plaintiffs, in support of the Summons, says that the plaintiffs had on 30 July 2002 written a letter of complaint about the nuisance, to the Lami Town Council.}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Following a meeting between the parties and the Council the defendant, according to the Council\rquote s letter to the defendant of 30 July 2002, undertook to carry out specified improvements on its plant and premises, that will reduce or eliminate the dust nuisance alleged by the plaintiffs. \par \par Mr Nand says that up till now, the defendant has failed to carry out the works ordered by the Council.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 This in spite of a follow-up letter by the plaintiffs\rquote solicitors of 30 September 2002. \par \par The plaintiffs had furthermore commissioned a report by the Institute of Applied Science at the University of the South Pacific.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The report, is on the measurement of the dust level on the plaintiffs\rquote premises over a period of 7 weeks from 23 September 2002.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 For the first 7 weeks, the report stated, according to the plaintiffs, an average dust level of 89 ug m3 compared to the permissible mean annual dust concentration range of 80 \endash 90 ug m3 allowable by the World Health Organization. \par \par The continuation of emission of high level of dust from the defendant\rquote s property on to the plaintiffs\rquote has not only post a hazardous health risk to the consumers of the food products processed by the plaintiffs, but also to their employees.} {\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The plaintiffs also argue that the value of their properties have been diminished as a consequence a nd unless and until the defendant is restrained, they will continue to suffer damages. \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Counsel for the plaintiffs rely on Ryland & Or. V. Fletcher [1868] All ER 1, the leading authority on the liability of owner of a property for the escape of nuisance from his property.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Counsel argued that the facts of this case falls on all four within the principles of Ryland\rquote s Case.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The headnote to the Case states: \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 If a person brings or accumulates on his land anything e.g. water, or filth, or noxious fumes \endash which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 If it does escape and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15362138 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Defendant\rquote s Arguments \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par The defendant denies that its operations is responsible for the dust cloud alleged by the plaintiffs as emanating from its property.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 In its affidavits in reply, the defendant \rquote s Operation Manager, John Wind refer to other possible causes of dust cloud.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 These include the Humes Company operating 200 to 250 yards away which also manufacture concrete and maintains a cement silo.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Its operation, according to Mr Wind, is about twice the size of the defendant\rquote s.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 There is also the fact that the road serving both the plaintiffs\rquote and defendant\rquote s properties, are in a bad state of disrepair and its use by heavy vehicles and trucks, only adds to the amount of pollution including dust cloud, escaping into the environment. \par \par The defendant also takes issue with the use of the University of the South Pacific report by the plaintiffs.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 In the first place, Counsel argues, the report merely spoke of \par }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 dust levels in air.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The report does not separate or distinguish the different sources of dust, for example, whether they originate from the defendant\rquote s plants or from the road or from elsewhere.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 There is no specific mention of cement dust.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 In any case, even if the Court were to accept that the report was specifically on the cement dust, defendant argues that in only one of the five weeks over which the tests were carried out was the level above the WHO permissible level. \par \par AS to whether the rule of }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 on strict liability for damage applied, the defendant Counsel referred to subsequent Court decisions that have established that ordinary or natural use of the land is a defence to claim of nuisance.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Thus in Cambridge }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 [1994] 1 All ER 53, Lord Goff of Chieveley after having examined nuisance and the rule in }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 added, at p.70: \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \'85\'85 although liability for nuisance has generally been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of a nuisance, even so the liability has been kept under control by the principle of reasonable user \endash the principle of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land, under which}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 :}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 see Bramford v. Turnley (1862) 3 B & S 62 at 83, \{1861 \endash 73\} All ER Rep. 701 at 712 per Bamwell B.}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The effect is that, if the user is reasonable, the defendant will not be liable for consequent harm to his neighbour\rquote s enjoyment of his land; but if the us er is not reasonable, the defendant will be liable, even though he may have exercised reasonable care and skill to avoid it.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The limits to the strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher is to be found in the Privy Council decision in Rickards v.Lothian \{1913\} AC 263, where Lord Moulton reflecting on the rule said, at p. 280: \par \par It is not every use to which land is put that brings into play that principle.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.}{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Defendant Counsel also referred the Court to 2 Australasian decisions of }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Hazelwood v. Webber}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \{1934\} 52 CLR 268 and }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 NZ Products v. O\rquote Sullivan}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 that have held that charge of nuisance could not be sustained in a situation where the use of the land is considered as ordinary or expected use. \par \par The defendant, in response to the Lami Town Council\rquote s concern, submits that it voluntarily had taken measures including the erection of a sprinkler systeym, the daily hosing down of the yard and construction of enclosure around the cement silo, that were all intended to abate any nuisance, including dusts. \par \par Furthermore, the defendant points to the Inspection Report from the Director of Environment who, after inspecting the premise to determine the level and measures of controls put in place to address the problems of dust nuisance, concluded that he was satisfied with the measures put in place by the defendant. \par \par The defendant has also produced to the Court a letter from Karo (South Pacific) Ltd., which operates its business direct opposite from the defendant\rquote s premises.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 It \rquote s Managing Director in the letter states that they had been tenant in their present premises for last 4 years and have had no major dust problem, even although their office have windows open as there is no airconditioning.}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 According to the Company, }{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 the dust in no more than that generated by passing traffic on the road \'85.}{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par \par The defendant finally argues that in any case, injunction would not normally be granted by the Courts if the nuisance complained of is of a }{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 temporary}{ \fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 nature or }{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 occasional}{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 in character.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Thus if the USP scientific report was applied, then the level of du st nuisance, presuming that it had all escaped from the defendant}{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 s property, would have risen above the WHO acceptable level of 80 \endash 90 ug m3}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 only once in the 7 weeks the test had been carried out.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Under such circumstances, defendant argued, the application for and granting of the interim relief of injunction would be wholly inappropriate. \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15362138 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Injunction Application \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The principles governing interim injunction are set out in }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 American Cyanamid v. Ethiccon}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ltd. [1975] ac 396.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 It is now generally accepted that a plaintiff need only establish that a serious issue arises and that the claim is not fivilous or vexatious or that the application discloses a reasonable prospect of success.}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Thereafter, the Court\rquote s primary consideration is the balance of convenience.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 This basically involves the Court assessing whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by damages if refused an injunction or whether the defendant could be adequately compensated in damages if an injunction is granted. \par \par First, is there a serious issue raised by the plaintiffs.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Their claim is premised on the allegation of nuisance generated from within the defendant\rquote s property and escaping into the neighbouring properties belonging to the plaintiffs.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 They rely on the }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ryland v. Fletcher}{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 doctrine of strict liability. \par \par The uncontested facts of this case before this Court is as follows.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The defendant had, on 8 February 1996 purchased the property (C.L. 5407).}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The property is zoned }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 industrial}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 and Clause 6 of the Lease specifically stipulates: \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 6.\tab The lessee shall use the demised land for the Industrial purposes and not for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the lessor.}{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Industrial purposes would certainly in my view, include activities such as manufacture of concrete products and the supply of ready mixed concrete as well as supply of gravel and sand, which the defendant is involved in.}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Such activities the Court notes, have additionally been approved on the property through the business licences obtained by the defendant from the Lami Town Council. \par \par The 1st plaintiff had purchased its property (Native Lease 16086), in July 1984, whilst the 2nd plaintiff purchased Crown Lease 5417 in January 2001.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Both leases are industrial, and both specifically (Cl. 9 in N.L. 16086, and Cl. 6 in C.L. 5417) stipulate that the use shall be primarily industrial.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Both plaintiffs are presumed to be aware of all the permissible activities in an industrial sub-division, and in the case of the 2nd plaintiff, the presumption is that it was fully aware of its neighbour\rquote s, the defendant\rquote s activities, when it moved in to operate its own. \par \par Does the }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 doctrine apply on the facts of this case?}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 I believe that the defendant has conclusively shown why this case is different to the usual }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 situation.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 First the defendant is carrying on a permissible activity to which its land has been zoned.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The manufacture of concrete products as well as trade in ready mixed concrete, gravel and sand are what can generally be termed as the expected or common and ordinary use of the land.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 In my view, the defendant cannot be deprived of the full enjoyment of land according to the reasonable standard of behaviour that is expected of those businesses that operate from industrial zones.}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 This situation is clearly and exception to the strict liability of under }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 .}{ \fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 As the High Court of Australia observed in Hazelwood v. Webber \{1934\} 52 CLR 268 AT P. 277: \par \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5076876 {\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 The principle upon which a prima facie absolute liability appears to be imposed by law is that no man should at the expense of his neighbours introduce upon his own land a potential source of harm which is considered to require continual and effective control or restraint to prevent mischief.}{\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 If through or relaxation of control damage to his neighbour occurs, although without negligence on his part, he should indemnify his neighbour.}{\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 But when to obtain effectual use and enjoyment of land is a reasonable manner according to its character and the uses for which it is adapted, occupiers find that the introduction of such potential source of harm is generally necessary; to insist upon the prima facie rule would be to restrict the proper enjoyment of the land or to impose a special responsibility for loss arising from a danger to which by the recognised use of the land every occupier exposed himself and other occupiers.}{\i\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid5076876 }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 Accordingly, when use of the element or thing which the law regards as a potential source of mischi ef is an accepted incident of some ordinary purpose to which the land is reasonably applied by the occupier, the prima facie rule of absolute responsibility for the consequences of its escape must give way.}{\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid5076876 "}{ \i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13053105 {\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6246550 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Surely in this case, any potential source of mischief which is likely to arise from the defendant\rquote s operations on its Crown Lease No 5407,}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid6246550 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 is an accepted incident of some ordinary purpose to which the land is reasonably applied.}{ \b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid6246550 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6246550\charrsid5076876 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6246550 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Secondly, there is the question of proof of the nuisance.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 While it woul d be premature at this stage for the Court to make any conclusion on any disputes at to facts before the parties, there exists clearly at this stage of a credibility gap in the connection between the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including the Uni versity of the South Pacific scientific report, and the defendant\rquote s activities.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 The nuisance allegedly escaping from the defendant\rquote s premises is cement dust while the USP report to which the plaintiffs\rquote based their case, only refers to }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid6246550 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 dust cloud}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid6246550 "} {\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 and }{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid6246550 "}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 dust levels in the air.}{\b\i\fs24\insrsid5076876\charrsid6246550 "}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 The fact that there exist additional causes close by to the compilation of the dust cloud, does little to support the plaintiffs\rquote arguments. \par \par I have gone into some details on the substance of the action including evidence before the Court if only to show that there is no serious issue that arises.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 The law including the limitations of the application of }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 doctrine is clear.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Interim reliefs such as interim injunction being sought by the plaintiffs here, are intended to avoid Courts determining disputes of facts or difficult question of law at the interlocutory stage of the action.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 However, where as I have found, in this case, there is no serious issue raised by the plaintiffs\rquote then it follows that their application for injunction is bound to fail on the ground that it has no merit. \par \par There is also the issue of the transient nature of the nuisance alleged to have come from the defendant\rquote s property.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 The plaintiffs have relied heavily on the USP report to show the amount of dust levels at their premises for the period of 7 weeks between 23 September and 11 November 2002.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Given that on only one out of the seven occasions the dust levels had exceeded the WHO permissible level, and on only two out of the seven, it rose above the United States\rquote Environmental Protection Agency Level, then the question of whether it is appropriate for this Court to grant the injunction in the circumstances of the occasional and transient nature of nuisance, becomes relevant.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 In my view it would be inappropriate to grant the relief sought.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 At the end, the plaintiffs argued that it mattered not that the level of dusts were below the internationally accepted standard, so long as there was leakage or escape of a nuisance from the defendant\rquote s premises, liability followed.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 In the Court\rquote s view, in the light of the developments of the law since }{\i\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Ryland v. Fletcher}{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 , th e international standard and permissible level set for dust pollution should reflect how far may an occupier pursue the enjoyment of the ordinary use of his land without being made liable for any alleged harmful consequences. \par \par But even if this Court were to hold inspite all of the above, that there are serious issues that have been raised by the plaintiffs, the balance of convenience clearly favours the defendant.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{ \fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 The Court is persuaded, after hearing the submissions of both Counsel, that the plaintiffs would be adequately compensated by damages. \par \par The plaintiffs\rquote Summons is dismissed.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 Costs of $400.00 to the defendant.}{\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 \par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5076876 \f37\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6246550 \par }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6246550 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 F. Jitoko \par JUDGE}{\b\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6246550 {\fs24\insrsid1009662\charrsid6246550 \par }{\fs24\insrsid12922052\charrsid6246550 At Suva \par 11 May 2005 \par }}