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

  Download original PDF

Farer Group Pte Ltd v The Fiji Sugar Corporation Ltd [2026] FJHC 171; HBC65.2019 (24 March 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION) AT LAUTOKA
EXERCISING CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION No. HBC -65 of 2019

BETWEEN:
FARER GROUP PTE LIMITED,
a limited Liability company, having its registered office, Amarsee Building, Main Street Nadi.
PLAINTIFF

AND:
THE FIJI SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED,
a limited Liability Company, having its Registered Office at Drasa Avenue, Balawa, Lautoka.
DEFENDANT

BEFORE:
Hon. Mr. Justice Mohamed Mackie.

APPEARANCES:
On 14^th July 2025 -Mr. Narayan A. (snr) with Mr. Narayan A. (j) & Ms. Wong E. for the Plaintiff
On 21^st November 2025 Mr. Narayan A. (jnr) for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Adrian Ram – For the Defendant on both days

HEARING:
On 14^th July 2025 & 21^st November 2025

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
By the Plaintiff filed on 14^th July 2025 and 16^th January 2026.
By the Defendant on 14^th July 2025 and 11^th December 2025.

DECIDED:
On 6^th March 2026.

SUPPLEMENTARY RULING:
On 24^th March 2026

SUPPLEMENTARY RULING
(For correction of a clerical mistake)

1. Pursuant to the inter-partes hearing held before me on the aforesaid dates into the Defendant’s Application filed on 10th July 2025 seeking inter-alia orders for the amendment of Defence, this Court by its Ruling dated 6^th March 2026 made the following Orders
   
   1. The Defendant’s Application for the Amendment of the Statement of Defence fails.
      
   2. The Defendant’s Application filed on 10th July 2025 is dismissed, save for the Order made on it for the adjournment of the trial on 14th to 16th July 2025.
      
   100. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff within 21 days from today, a sum of $27,580.00 (Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Dollars) being the 50% of the costs claimed to have incurred by the plaintiff for and up to the preparation of the 3 days trial.
        
   4. The remaining 50% claim for incurred costs is to be considered after the trial.
      
   5. The Defendant shall also pay the Plaintiff within 21 days from today a sum of $3,000.00 (Three Thousand Dollars) being the summarily assessed costs on account of this Application.
      
   6. The Defendant’s subsequent Application, dated 28th January 2026, for further Amendment of the Statement of Defence and other Orders, to be heard on an earliest possible date.
      
2. Subsequently, upon reviewing the written Ruling dated 6^th March 2026, the Solicitors for the Plaintiff, by their letter dated 13^th march 2026 addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court with a copy to the Solicitors for the Defendant, have drawn my attention to an error in paragraph 65 of the said Ruling which reads as follows;
   

65. Having considered the application, the affidavit evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions advanced by counsel, I conclude that an application for amendment of pleadings can be made at any stage of the proceedings, even after the commencement of the proceedings (trial) before judgment without an explanation for the delay. However, I find that the proposed amendments do not introduce new case/defence. The new defence goes against the agreed facts recorded at the PTC on the initial defence.

3. On careful perusal of the contents of the said paragraph 65, I find that the word “not” found in the second sentence thereof is an apparent typographical error inadvertently committed on my part during the process of finalizing the said Ruling.
   
4. When the entirety of the said Ruling and the final orders thereof dated 6^th March 2026 are carefully scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear that the impugned word “not” found in the second sentence of paragraph 65 above was an unintended inclusion, which may taint the decision arrived at by the Court in its final orders.
   
5. Solicitors for the Plaintiff have drawn my attention to the relevant Order and Rule in the High Court Rules 1988 that permits the correction of any accidental slip or omissions at any time upon a motion or Summons without an Appeal.
   
6. My attention has also been drawn to a Supplementary Judgment dated 11^th August 2004 in Action No- HBC 153/97L Frederick William Edward Markham v Yanuca Island Resort Limited , wherein the amount awarded in a sum of A$364,024.00 was withdrawn and in its place the amount of A$ 441,291.00 was substituted.
   
7. By copying the Plaintiff’s Solicitor’s letter dated 13^th March, 2026 to the Defendant’s solicitors, this mistake has been brought to the Notice of the Defendant’s Solicitors. Additionally, on my instruction, the Registry has also informed the Defendant’s Solicitors about the letter received from the Plaintiff’s Solicitors on this apparent mistake. They have not indicated any objection for the correction of the same.
   
8. I don’t find any prejudice would be caused to the Defendant by the correction of the said error, on my own motion, on being brought to my attention by the Solicitors for the Plaintiff in their letter dated 13^th March 2026.
   
9. Accordingly, I decide to remove the word “not” in the second sentence of paragraph 65 of my Ruling dated 6^th March 2026 for the said sentence to be read as “However, I find that the proposed amendments do introduce a new case/ defence.”
   
10. The said correction will not change any of the final orders made on 6^th March 2026. Orders be sealed accordingly. I thank the Solicitors for the plaintiff for bringing this to my attention, and the Solicitors for the Defendant for not raising any objection for it. Any inconvenience caused is regretted.
    

A.M. Mohamed Mackie
Judge

At the High Court of Lautoka on this 24^th day of March, 2026.

SOLICITORS:
For the Plaintiff Messrs. A.K. Lawyers- Barristers & Solicitors
For the Defendant Messrs. Gibson & Company- Solicitors- Labasa