IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA
Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Action No. 76 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Olaf Allen
Plaintiff

AND:

Fiji Rugby Union
Defendant

Appearances: Mr Lateef for the plaintiff 
Mr N. Lajendra for the defendant

Date of hearing:  29th July, 2013

JUDGMENT

1.	By writ of summons filed on 13th March, 2012, the plaintiff claims from the defendant, a sum of $ 100,000 arising from his winnings, at a lottery conducted and drawn by the defendant on 30th December, 2010. The plaintiff was declared the first prize winner. The defendant, in its statement of defence filed on 5th June, 2012, states that the draw was null and void, for the reasons that all the lottery tickets were not placed in the draw and the price of the ticket was reduced from $ 20 to $ 10. The plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment. The Master declined the application.

2.	The plaintiff, by this summons dated 12 September, 2012, has sought the following orders, namely that:

a)	The freezing order imposed by the Court on the Defendant not to distribute the lottery prize money be varied.

b)	The Draft Deed of Settlement entered into by the Fiji Commerce Commission and the Defendant be varied.

c)	This action be tried without further pleadings.

d)	A freezing order to be granted against the Defendant from redrawing or entering into any Deed of Settlement in relation to the lottery until this matter is determined.

e)	Extension of time to file Summons for Directions.

3.	The plaintiff filed affidavit in support of his summons. The Chief Executive Officer of the defendant filed affidavit in opposition and the plaintiff, his reply. 

4.	At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Lateef, stated that he was not pursuing the first, second and fourth reliefs in his summons, for the reason that the redraw of the lottery has taken place.

5.	The dispute between the parties has already resulted in litigation being filed twice. The present case is the plaintiff's third journey. The plaintiff made an application to intervene as a party in HBC 4 of 2011, filed by the Fiji Commerce Commission against the defendant. He was joined as an intervenor. But he did not file a claim, as directed by Court. The Fiji Commerce Commission and the defendant entered into the deed of settlement referred to by the plaintiff in paragraph (b) of this summons. Then, the plaintiff filed an action by way of originating summons in HBC 315 of 2011, against the defendant. That case was dismissed, on the ground that the action falls within the categories, in which it was mandatory to have been advanced by writ of summons, in terms of Or 5, r 4.

6.	The determination

6.1	In sub-paragraphs c) and e) of his summons, the plaintiff, moves that this action be tried without further pleadings and seeks an extension of time to file summons for directions. In my view, this summons was unnecessary for the following reasons.

6.2	The pleadings in this case closed on 27 August,2012, being "at the expiration of 14 days after" the statement of defence was filed on 13 August, 2012, as stipulated in Or 18, r19. This matter must then, necessarily proceed to trial.

6.3	Under order 25,r 1 (1), a plaintiff, a plaintiff must take out summons within one month after the pleadings in an action are closed. As at the date of filing the present summons, the plaintiff had two weeks, to file summons for directions. 

6.4	At the hearing, Mr Lateef moved for a mareva injunction under the fourth relief sought in his summons. There is no application before court for the relief sought. In any event, there is no evidence before Court that the assets of the defendant are being dissipated. The application for a mareva injunction is declined. 

7.	Orders

i)	I dismiss the summons. 
ii)	The matter shall proceed to trial. 
iii)	The plaintiff is entitled to file summons for directions.
iv)	The application for a mareva injunction is declined.
v)	The plaintiff shall pay the defendant costs summarily assessed in a sum of $ 750 within 21 days.

9th December, 2013

A.L.B.Brito-Mutunayagam
Judge