Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Rup Investments Ltd v South Pacific Investments Ltd [2002] FJHC 40; Hbc0090d.2002s (15 March 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC 90 OF 2002S

Between:

RUP INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Plaintiff

and

SOUTH PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Defendant

Tikaram for the Plaintiff
Ms. G. Phillips for the Defendant

DECISION

This is an application by a lessor for an injunction to prevent a lessee removing lessee’s fixtures from demised premises.

The general principles applicable to the grant of interlocutory injunctions are contained in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] UKHL 1; [1975] AC 396; [1975] 1 All ER 504 which has been followed by the Fiji Courts. Before an injunction will be granted the Plaintiff must establish that he has a good arguable claim to the right he seeks to protect. It must also be shown that damages would be an insufficient remedy for the breach of that right.

Although Mr. Tikaram told me from the bar table that the Defendant is a $100 shell company there is in fact no evidence before me as to its financial strength. Therefore there does not appear to be any evidence that an award of damages would not be a sufficient remedy to the Plaintiff in this case.

More importantly, I am not persuaded that the Defendant has no right to remove the fixtures in question before committing any breach of the lease. While notice has been given of an intention to terminate the lease such a notice does not, I am satisfied, constitute a breach.

In these circumstances I do not think that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. The application fails and is dismissed.

M.D. Scott
Judge

15 March 2002