IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Action No. 109 of 2011

BETWEEN:

MID WEST HOLDINGS LIMITED
of Corner Point, corner of Nadi Back Road and Nadi Bypass Road, Meigumyeh.
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

AND:

BLAIR TARRANT JACKSON, JEANNETTE ROSEMARIE JACKSON, JOHN GRAEME COX as trustees of the Jackson Pacific Trust of 338B Kon Tiki Road, Whiritoa Beach, Coromandel Peninsular, New Zealand.
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS

Before: Priyantha Nāwāna J.

Counsel:
Defendant-Appellant : Mr S Krishna
Plaintiff-Respondent : Mr P Lowing with Mr N Vakacakau

Date of Hearing : 31 January 2013

Written-submissions : 30 Nov. 2012 (By Respondent)
04 Dec. 2012 (By Appellant)

Date of Judgment : 22 February 2013

JUDGMENT

1.	The appellant appeals with leave of this court against the ruling dated 27 March 2012 of the learned Master on the issue of interest payable to the Respondent. 

2.	The facts and the chronology of events are set-out in my judgment dated 27 August 2012 granting leave, among other matters, against the learned Master's decision. Hence, facts in full need not be repeated.

3.	Learned Master in his ruling ordered that '… post-judgment' interest' at 6% from 09 November 2008 to the date of [the] [r]uling'.

4.	Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that there was no submission by the Appellant as to how the learned Master had erred. Learned counsel proceeded to submit that the wording of the learned Master's decisions was, in the circumstances, a typographical error in that the learned Master had intended to use the word 'pre-judgment interest' as opposed to 'post-judgment interest'.

5.	It was further submitted that that was clear from the learned Master's ruling of 27 March 2012 as he had set the time period in paragraph (ii) of the ruling. The paragraph read:

'(ii)	I also award post judgment interest at 6% from 09 November 2008 to the date of this Ruling'.

6.	In the case of Air Fiji Ltd v Houng-Lee – Majority Judgment [2005] FJCA 84, the Fiji Court of Appeal held that pre-judgment interest was always in the discretion of the Judge; and, if awardable on what quantum such interest should be awarded.

7.	The appellant has failed to establish as to how the learned Master had erred. 

8.	In the circumstances, I accept the Respondent's contention that what the learned Master had, in fact, wanted to award was 'pre-judgment interest' for the relevant period but not the post-judgment interest.

9.	This court in the exercise of the appellate powers alters the 'post-judgment interest' to read as 'pre-judgment interest' in paragraph (ii) of the learned Master's decision.

10.	Subject to the above variation, I dismiss the appeal without costs.

Priyantha Nāwāna
Judge
High Court
Lautoka
22 February 2013