{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f182\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f183\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f185\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f187\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f189\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f190\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\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\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid7152300 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive 
\ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid811014\rsid862776
\rsid1009808\rsid1598413\rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4072926\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203
\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6953338\rsid7152300\rsid7281438\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7818236\rsid7864655\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331
\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9635384\rsid9776131\rsid10355983\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11562361\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12015529\rsid12063525
\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12718384\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid13373369\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321\rsid14954103\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671
\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author raikatalau_l}
{\operator raikatalau_l}{\creatim\yr2011\mo6\dy15\hr10\min47}{\revtim\yr2011\mo6\dy15\hr10\min47}{\version2}{\edmins2}{\nofpages5}{\nofwords2539}{\nofchars12289}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws14734}{\vern24689}}
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1
\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct
\asianbrkrule\rsidroot7152300\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\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\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs22\lang1036\langfe1033\langnp1036\insrsid7152300\charrsid9635384 {\*\bkmkstart Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC_AG}
JOELI NAITEI v PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
\par }{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 & ATTORNEY-GENERAL
\par {\*\bkmkend Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC_AG}
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 High Court Civil Jurisdiction
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 3, 9, 15 May, }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 7 August 2001 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 HBC 256/00
\par 
\par }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Unlawful dismissal \endash  whether the action should have commenced by judicial review instead of Originating Summons \endash  }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
 was in employ of }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 s who perform public duties - Public Service Commission (Con}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 stitution) Regulations 1990; High Court Rules}{
\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  O.53
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
 sought by Originating Summons to be reinstated to the position as Technical Assistant (Vehicle Examiner) at the Land Transport Authority, and to commensurate remuneration.  The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
s opposed the Summons, seeking to strike out the summons, on the basis that the action should have begun by judicial review.  The court found there was }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 no contract between the parties;}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
 that the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 s performed public duties, but looked to the kind of body challenged and the functions they exercised. }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 The Court follow
ed authorities in determining that this was an abuse of process.}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Held - }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 , in seeking to enforce a public right on the performance of the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 \rquote 
s public duty should have brought proceedings by way of judicial review.  The Court has no power to convert a writ, wrongly brought, into a claim for judicial review. Declaration that the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  is not entitled to continue with Originating Summons or relief sought otherwise than by judicial review is still available.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par Originating Summons struck out.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Cases referred to in }{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300 D}{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ecision }{
\b\fs22\insrsid7152300 
\par }{\b\fs22\insrsid4072926\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-374\li374\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ref }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 British Steel plc. v Customs and Excise Commissioners}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  (1997) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 All ER}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 366
\par foll }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Cocks v Thanet District Council}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  (1983) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 AC}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  286
\par cons }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Davy v Spelthorne}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  BC (1984) }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 AC}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  262
\par appr }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Doyle & Ors v Northumbria Probation Committee}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  (1991) 1 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 WLR}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  1340
\par foll }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Eroni Waqaitanoa v Commissioner of Prisons & Ors}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  [2000] HBC 271/00 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 D}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ecision 7 September 2000
\par foll }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Fiji Public Service Association v Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji & Ors}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  [1998] HBJ 15/98 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 D}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ec}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300 i}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 sion 30 November 1998
\par foll }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Fiji Teachers Union v Permanent Secretary for Education & Anor}{\fs22\insrsid7152300  [1998] HBC 21/97 D}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ecision 21 July 1998
\par foll }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Jimione Buwawa v Permanent Secretary for Education & Ors}{\fs22\insrsid7152300  [1997] HBJ 19/97 D}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ecision 22 July 1997
\par appr }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Moroccan Workers Association v Attorney General}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  (1995) 1 LRC 451 (SC) vide Commonwealth Law Bulletin July 1995 747
\par appr }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 O\rquote Reilly v Mackman}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  (1983) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 AC}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  237
\par appl }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Ram Prasad v Attorney General}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  [1997] HBC 311/92 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 D}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ecision 12 September 1997, upheld by ABU 58/97S }{
\fs22\insrsid7152300 [1999] }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Judgment 27 August 1999.
\par cons }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Roy v Kensington & Chelsea}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  }{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 FPC}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  (1992) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 WLR}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  239
\par foll }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Shakuntala Nair v Secretary, Public Service Commission & Anor}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  [2001] HBC 359/00 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 D}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 ecision 28 May 2001

\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Sevuloni Valenitabua for the }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par P}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 ratibha}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  Raj for the }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 s
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\b\caps\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 7 August}{\fs22\insrsid7152300 ,}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983  2001\tab \tab \tab \tab }{
\b\caps\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 decision
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Pathik, J.
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 On 15 June 2000 the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  filed an Originating Summons seeking various declarations and orders arising out of his alleged unlawful dismissal by the }{
\fs22\insrsid7152300 First Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  (D1).  He also seeks an Order that the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 First Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  \lquote reinstates the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  to the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \rquote 
s former position as Technical Assistant (Vehicle Examiner) at the Road Transport Department-cum-Land Transport Authority and to pay the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  commensurate renumeration\rquote .
\par 
\par The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 s are opposing the Summons.  On 15 February 2001 they filed a Summons to Strike Out supported by an affidavit.  The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  has filed a Reply in opposition to the said affidavit.
\par 
\par The issue for the Court\rquote s determination is whether the action should rightly have been brought by way of judicial review, rather than by an action begun by Originating Summons.
\par 
\par This was raised as a preliminary point by the learned counsel for the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 s.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Determination of the issue}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
\par 
\par I have before me helpful written submissions from both counsel and I have given them due consideration.
\par 
\par The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  was by letter titled \lquote Letter of Probationary Appointment\rquote 
 dated 6.12.95 appointed on probation to be a Technical Assistant (Vehicle Examiner) in the  then Road Transport Department with effect from 6.12.95 on certain terms and conditions which included in clause \lquote 9':  \'93}{
\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 This appointment is subject to production of a satisfactory medical report and police clearance}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \'94
. Before his said appointment he was in 1993 convicted of traffic offences when he was fined and disqualified from driving for 12 months.  The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 said that he disclosed his conviction to the interviewing panel and yet later he was terminated from employment which he said is unlawful.  The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
s denied that his conviction was disclosed as alleged.
\par 
\par The issue for determination is very similar to the one that arose in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Ram_Prasad_v_AG_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Ram Prasad s/o {\*\bkmkend Ram_Prasad_v_AG_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Ram Rattan }{
\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 v}{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  The Attorney-General of Fiji}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  (Civil Action No. 311 of 1992 - judgment 12 September 1997 - P
athik J).  This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1997S).
\par 
\par The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 First Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  in this case performed a public duty.  The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  was governed, inter alia, by the 
{\*\bkmkstart PSC_Const_Regs_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Public Service Commission (Constitution) Regulations {\*\bkmkend PSC_Const_Regs_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}1990 (the \'93Regulations\'94).  On the facts of this case the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  should have proceeded by way of judicial review of the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \rquote s (D1) decision.  The }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  is seeking to enforce a public right on the performance by the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 of a public duty.  Hence the decision is susceptible to judicial review.  It is different if there is a contract between the aggrieved person and the public body; and in this regard it is worth noting the following passage from the book }{
\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 The }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 Applicant}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \rquote s Guide to Judicial Review }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 by Lee Bridges and Others at p.5:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri526\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \'93
However, if there is a contract between the aggrieved person and the public body then it is likely that any actions or decisions the body makes in relation 
to that person will be governed by private law rather than public law.  The individual will not therefore be able to challenge them by judicial review: his or her remedy will be to sue for damages (and/or a declaration or injunction) in an ordinary civil 
court or tribunal\'94. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
\par In this case there is no contract between the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  and the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  and hence no question of private law arises.  The }{
\fs22\ul\insrsid7152300\charrsid13373369 \'93question will depend to an extent on the kind of body to be challenged and more so on the functions they are exercising in the particular case\'94}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  (}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid12718384 Bridges}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 , ibid at p6).
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx-1440\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 The following extract from the judgment in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid12718384 
{\*\bkmkstart O_Reilly_v_Mackman_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}O\rquote Reilly v Mackman}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkend O_Reilly_v_Mackman_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC} (1983) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 AC}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 237 is pertinent:       \tab 
\par }\pard \qj \li561\ri526\widctlpar\tx-1440\tx6919\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin561\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \'93
That since all the remedies for the infringement of rights protected by public law could be obtained on an application for judicial review, as a general rule it would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of the process of the court for a }{
\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  complaining of a public authority\rquote s infringement of his public law rights to seek redress by ordinary action and that, accordingly, since in each case the only claim made by the }{
\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  was for a declaration that the board of visitors\rquote  adjudication against the }{\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 was void, it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow the actions to proceed and thereby avoid the protection afforded to statutory tribunals\'94.}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \tab 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Under Order 53 where the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 wrongfully brings his claim by way of judicial r
eview, the court has power to order that that claim be continued as though it had been commenced by writ.  But where the claim is wrongly commenced by writ or originating summons as in this case, the Court has no power to convert it into a claim for judic
ial review.  As stated by Henry J in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Doyle_v_Northumbria_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Doyle and Others v Northumbria {\*\bkmkend Doyle_v_Northumbria_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Probation Committee}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  (1991) 1 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 WLR}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  1340 at 1344:
\par }\pard \qj \li561\ri526\widctlpar\tx-1440\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin561\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \'93And if the }{\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
s were now to bring a free-standing application for judicial review, their delay has been such that I would find it difficult to envisage the court granting leave to them to apply for such judicial review.  Therefore it seems to me that if the }{
\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  committee succeeds in the application that it is making, that will be end of the }{\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 s\rquote  claim.\'94}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \tab 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
\par I have considered the legal arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 .  He has raised a number of points.  The main hurdle that the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  has to get over is whether originating summons is the correct mode of proceeding with his grievance.  As I have said, for the above reasons, the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 has adopted the wrong mode, in other words he should have proceeded by way of judicial review.  There is an abundance of authority on the subject and I have dealt with it at length in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Ram Prasad}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  (supra); it is also dealt with at some length on appeal to Court of Appeal in the same case (}{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Ram Prasad f/n Ram Rattan v The Attorney-General of Fiji}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 . Civil Appeal No. ABU0058 of 1997S - Judgment 27.8.99).
\par 
\par Having decided that this was not the correct mode, it is not necessary for me to consider all the other points raised by both counsel.  Therefore, I conclude with the following passage from the judgment in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
Moroccan Workers Association v {\*\bkmkstart Moroccan_Workers_v_AG_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}{\*\bkmkend Moroccan_Workers_v_AG_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Attorney-General}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 (1995) 1 Law Reports of the Commonwealth 451 (SC) vide Commonwealth Law Bulletin July 1995 p747 - 749:}{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri526\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \'93Matters of public law and administration ordinarily fell within th
e purview of s.31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and RSC Ord 53.  The remedies therein provided that judicial review ought to be the normal recourse in all cases where allegations were made that rights under public law were being infringed, eg where a priv
a
te person was challenging the conduct of a public authority or a public body, or of anyone acting in the exercise of a public duty.  The institution of proceedings by originating notice of motion for purely declaratory relief without any explanation of th
e delay that occurred before their institution in February 1993 and which were brought for the purpose of challenging matters of public law and administration was an inappropriate procedure and an abuse of the process of the court.\'94  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
\par In this case judicial review was t}{\fs22\insrsid7152300 he procedure under Order 53 of t}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 he High Court Rules.  The ratio of O\rquote Reilly as found in Lord Diplock\rquote s speech at p.285 was extended to }{
\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Cocks_v_Thanet_DC_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Cocks v Thanet District Council}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  {\*\bkmkend Cocks_v_Thanet_DC_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}(1983) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 AC}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  286.  There the action was commenced by writ and \'93it was stopped in that course, in that it was struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court in the House of Lords\'94.
\par 
\par In t
he outcome in the light of the many authorities on the issue before me and in view of the decision that I have reached as to the form the proceedings should take in matters of the nature before the Court I will allow the procedural objection raised by the
 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 s and in doing so I am not unmindful of what Lord Lowry said in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Roy_v_Kensington_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}
Roy v Kensington and Chelsea FPC}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  {\*\bkmkend Roy_v_Kensington_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}(1992) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 WLR}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  239, namely:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri526\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \'93It seems to me that unless the procedure adopted by t
he moving party is ill-suited to disposition of the question at issue there is much to be said in favour of the proposition that a court having a jurisdiction ought to let a case be heard rather than entertain a debate concerning the form of proceedings
\'94.}{\insrsid7152300 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri526\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \tab }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Similar sentiment was expressed by Lord Wilberforce in}{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{
\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Davy_v_Spelthorne_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Davy v Spelthorne}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  {\*\bkmkend Davy_v_Spelthorne_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}BC 1984 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 AC}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  262 at 278 where he said:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri526\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  \'93We have not yet reached a point at which a mere characterisation of a
 claim as a claim in public law is sufficient to exclude it from consideration by the ordinary courts: to permit this would be to create a dual system of law with the rigidity and procedural hardship for }{\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{
\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 s which it was the purpose of the recent reforms to remove\'94.  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
\par Before departing from this subject of distinction between private law and public law, it is accepted that, }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Ram Prasad}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 a decision of the Court of Appeal is authority for the decision in this case.  A number of other cases in the High Court have been struck out for the reasons stated in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid11562361 Ram Prasad}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 .  Some of the cases are:   }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Jimione_Buwawa_PS_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Jimione Buwawa v The Permanet Secretary for Education and Others}{
\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkend Jimione_Buwawa_PS_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Suva High Court Judicial Review No. 19 of 1997, 22 July 1997}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7281438 , Pathik J}{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  - dismissing an originating summons; }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart FPSA_v_CAAF_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Fiji Public Service Association v Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji & 
{\*\bkmkend FPSA_v_CAAF_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Others}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 , Lautoka High Court Judicial Review No. 15 of 1998 - 30 November 1998 - Madraiwiwi J; }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
{\*\bkmkstart Eroni_W_v_Com_Prisons_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Eroni Waqaitanoa v The Commissioner of Prisons & Others}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkend Eroni_W_v_Com_Prisons_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}, Suva High Court Civil Action No
. 271 of 2000 - 7.9.2000 - Scott J; }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart Shakuntala_Nair_v_PSC_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Shakuntala Nair v The Secretary, Public Service Commission & Another}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
{\*\bkmkend Shakuntala_Nair_v_PSC_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}, Suva High Court Civil Action No. 359 of 2000 - 28.5.2001 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid14954103 - Scott J.}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655   F
or completeness I would mention that Byrne J was inclined towards a different view from his brother Judges in the }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart FTU_v_PS_Education_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Fiji Teachers Union v The}{
\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Permanent Secretary for Education & Another}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  {\*\bkmkend FTU_v_PS_Education_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}
(Suva High Court Civil Action No. 21 of 1997, 21.7.98) after referring to an extract from }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid14954103 Administrative Law}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  by}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid14954103  Wade and Forsyth}{
\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 and relying on}{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Doyle}{\b\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 (supra) and }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkstart British_Steel_v_Customs_J_Naitei_v_PSC}British Steel plc. v Customs and Excise Commissioners}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  }{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 {\*\bkmkend British_Steel_v_Customs_J_Naitei_v_PSC}(1997) 2 }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 All ER}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 366.  However, His Lordship\rquote s decision predates }{
\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid11562361 Ram Prasad}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 .
\par 
\par A useful review of cases on the issue has been very well discussed in the June 2001 issue of }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 The Legal Lali}{\fs22\insrsid7152300  under the caption \'93}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 The Public Law 
- Private Law Divide in Fiji Courts: A Review of Recent Authorities\'94 by J.J. Udit and S. Sharma of the Attorney-General\rquote s Chambers.  I agree with the authors\rquote 
 suggestion that before the litigants and their advisors fall into the trap of choosing between private and public law remedy, \lquote }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
it is therefore important for legal practitioners to take note of recent authorities in this area of law, so that a }{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \rquote 
s grievance (regardless of its merits) does not fail because the wrong form of initiating proceedings has been chosen by the legal practitioner}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \rquote .   
\par 
\par For these reasons I declare that the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 is not entitled to continue with his Originating Summons or seek the relief sought by him otherwise than by application for judicial review if he is still able to do so under {\*\bkmkstart O53_HCR_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}Order 53 
{\*\bkmkend O53_HCR_Joeli_Naitei_v_PSC}of the High Court Rules.  It is for his counsel to decide what course the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Plaintiff}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 should take to pursue his grievance.  However, I will leave the subject on this point with the following observation by the Appeal Court in }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 Ram Prasad}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  at }{
\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid14954103 p.11}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  for counsel\rquote s consideration:
\par }\pard \qj \li561\ri526\widctlpar\tx-1440\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin561\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  \'93As the Judge pointed out, the }{\insrsid7152300 Appellant}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 can apply under Order 53 of the High Court Rules for leave to bring an application for judicial review.  In the normal course, such a long delay from 15 January 1992, when the }{\insrsid7152300 Appellant}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 was dismissed, would be fatal to any application for leave.  However, in the end the dominating consideration would be the interests of justice.  Provided that it can be established that this delay was not due to the }{\insrsid7152300 Appellant}{
\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655  personally, it may well be that in these somewhat exceptional circumstances the granting of leave may be appropriate.  But w
e emphasize that on that issue we are expressing no concluded view.  If an application for leave is brought, it will be for the Judge before whom it comes to decide whether the }{\insrsid7152300 Appellant}{\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 
 should be allowed to proceed at this very late stage\'94.   \tab }{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 \tab \tab \tab 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 In the outcome the }{\fs22\insrsid7152300 Defendant}{\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid7864655 s\rquote 
 application to strike out the summons is allowed with costs in the sum of $150.00.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 
\par }\pard \qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\i\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Application granted.
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7152300 {\fs22\insrsid7152300\charrsid10355983 Marie Chan}{\insrsid1972231 
\par }}