Commercial Law Updates

 On 28 October 2022, the Supreme Court of Fiji confirmed that Total (Fiji) Limited (TOTAL) is liable under Fiji law as a polluter. (CIVIL PETITION NO. CBV 0007 of 2020) (Supreme Court Judgment)

Fiji’s Supreme Court Judges were unanimous in their opinion that TOTAL had been negligent and caused a “pollution incident”. The Supreme Court Judgment upheld the Fiji Court of Appeal’s unanimous Judgment (CIVIL APPEAL NO. ABU 90 OF 2018) that found TOTAL had caused a pollution incident as defined by section 50 of the Environment Management Act, 2005. 

Together, Fiji’s Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judgments against TOTAL provide significant environmental law jurisprudence for Fiji and demonstrate that the “polluter pays principle” is established in Fiji common law. Amongst other things, the Supreme Court Judgment rejected TOTAL’s interpretation of section 50 of the Environment Management Act, and directed that damages be assessed against TOTAL under 5 separate heads of damages. 

TOTAL did not accept the higher Court Judgments and as a dissatisfied litigant, chose to file an application to challenge the Supreme Court Judgment pursuant to section 98(7) of the Constitution of Fiji. TOTAL’s challenge to the Supreme Court Judgment may be unprecedented in the context of civil litigation in Fiji. 

TOTAL’s challenge was heard by Fiji’s Supreme Court on 13 April 2023, and on 5 April 2024 the Supreme Court by unanimous decision rejected TOTAL’s challenge.

This article provides a summary of the exceptional circumstances under which the final judgment of Fiji’s highest court, the Supreme Court, may be challenged. Any challenge to the Supreme Court must be considered with extreme caution as the dissatisfied litigant challenges the public interest that litigation should reach a final conclusion.

A unanimous decision of Fiji’s Court of Appeal Ramendra Prasad v Total (Fiji) Limited, Civil Appeal No. ABU 90 of 2018, 28 February 2020 (Lecamwasam, JA, Almedia Guneratne, JA, Jameel, JA) has found Total (Fiji) Limited (“TOTAL”) negligent and liable for a fuel leak that was discovered in September 2008 close to Nausori on the island of Viti Levu, in Fiji.

In finding TOTAL negligent, liable and responsible for an underground fuel leak, Fiji’s Court of Appeal has affirmed Fiji’s Environment Management Act, 2005, and the principle “polluter pays” as well as affirming the actions and findings of Fiji’s Department of Environment.

In this legal update we focus on the key legal principles affirmed by the Court of Appeal as they are significant in terms of Fiji’s environmental jurisprudence and good governance.

In common with other common law jurisdictions, Fiji exercises State control over land including but not limited to how it may be developed. The regulation of development falls within the domain of planning and environmental law.

The government has announced that in the public interest it is in the process of updating its Town Planning Schemes for Suva, Lautoka and Nadi. This is an important nation building initiative because a Town Planning Scheme will shape future development in all these cities. But, it is also a significant undertaking that provides an opportunity for, and in our view, requires - wide consultation. If this consultative process is successful it will result in better planned development that along with the effective regulation of environmental standards, is essential to create sustainable and resilient cities and towns for Fiji’s future and its citizens' well-being.

In this update, we take a look at Fiji’s planning law framework and set out various reasons why it is vital for Fiji’s citizens to become involved in the consultation process that is being led by the Ministry for Industry, Trade, Tourism, Local Government, Housing and Community Development to create and adopt new Town Planning Schemes.

The reasons that public involvement is vital include but are not limited to:

• the significance of Town Planning Schemes to the way planning law and decisions operate in Fiji law
• the fact that the decisions made pursuant to Town Planning Schemes will have far reaching effects on all citizens, and may affect existing property rights
• Town Planning Schemes should be suited to Fiji’s context and linked to a shared and bold vision for Fiji’s future.

Each citizen who becomes involved in this consultative process has an opportunity to provide her/his views on how Fiji’s towns and cities should develop to improve but also what aspects of Fiji’s culture and values should be part of that future too.

Taking disciplinary action against an employee is perhaps the most challenging task for an employer. This is because in most cases of employee wrongdoing the employer must assume the technical roles of investigator, prosecutor and judge while owing an overriding duty to treat the employee fairly. The body of employment law in Fiji shows that employers can pay a high price for getting any of these stages wrong.

In this commercial law update, we consider the first stage of the disciplinary process - being the investigation to establish the facts of the matter. While in Fiji this stage is usually conducted by the employer, in other jurisdictions, like Australia, NZ, and Malaysia, an employer may seek a qualified third party to undertake an investigation.

In January 2019, the Fiji Law Society organised and hosted the LawAsia Employment Law Forum during which a senior employment lawyer, Mr Brian C Willamson distilled his many years of expert knowledge into a presentation about how to conduct disciplinary investigations to be “effective and fair”. While, it is likely that most employers due to limited resources and qualified investigators will still have to undertake their own investigations, Mr. Williamson’s detailed and expert knowledge provides valuable insights into this process.

The movement of migrant workers isn’t so much a global hot topic as a burning one. At the LAWASIA Employment Law Forum, 25-26 January, 2019, the key note presentations aimed to address Migrant Labour Issues: The Rights of Migrant Workers and the Obligations of Employers. An objective of this session was to share among delegates how migrant labour is regulated and what challenges are experienced in various Asia Pacific jurisdictions.

This commercial law update is based on the key note presentation provided to the conference to provide an overview of how migrant labour is regulated in Fiji and the Pacific. Due to time constraints for the key note presentations this update expands on some of the themes discussed during the key note presentation at the conference.

For more information on LAWASIA please see here

Fiji's employment law, like that of other common law jurisdictions, is a mix of statutory rights and common law principles. Fiji's Employment Relations Act, provides every employee with clear minimum standards in relation to conditions like leave, hours of work and minimum contract terms that an employer may exceed but cannot fall below.

However, when it comes to dismissing an employee for misconduct an employer must not only consider the Act but also the employee's contract of employment and what the common law sets out an employer must do to accord the employee with a fair process and decision before the dismissal. In situations of employee misconduct this can be difficult to do as emotions may be running high but the employer must still apply the law and often the best course of conduct is not to rush to a final decision.

In this update we consider a recent judgment from the Employment Relations Tribunal that sets out the tests that the employer must meet when terminating an employee for cause. A good understanding of these legal tests and what the Employment Relations Tribunal wants in terms of a fair disciplinary process will assist the employer to reach the right decision, as well as minimise legal risk and the chances of an employee being unfairly dismissed.

Fiji's Land Transfer Act, Cap 131, confers an indefeasible title to land on any proprietor who registers the title in accordance with the Land Transfer Act. There is only one exception that can defeat a registered title and this arises where it can be shown that the registered proprietor obtained the title by actual fraud.

In this legal bulletin we explain the law in relation to indefeasibility of title which includes consideration of leading case authorities from New Zealand, Australia and Fiji. We also discuss a recent Fiji Court of Appeal case authority that confirms that a registered proprietor of land has indefeasibility of title whether he or she is a purchaser of the title or obtains the title as a volunteer under a will.

In Fiji law the requirement for building permits for new buildings within cities and towns and any other areas “gazetted" by the relevant Minister derives from regulations made pursuant to section 39 of the Public Health Act 1935. A building permit is issued by the local authority and is required prior to the lawful construction of any building. Depending on a building proposed, its location and other factors like environmental impacts, the local authority may not be able to issue the building permit until approvals are issued from other government ministries or departments.

On 14 July 2017, the Fiji Parliament enacted the Regulation of Building Permits Act 2017 (“RBPA”) which aims to streamline the process for obtaining a building permit.

In this bulletin we consider the implications of the RBPA both for developers but also in terms of the potential impacts on good decision making for Fiji’s natural resources and those who may be adversely affected by development decisions.