Vinil Vikash Krishnan v. Fiji Revenue and Customs Service

• Jurisdiction: Fiji
• Judgment Date: 08 June 2018
• Date: 08 June 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. HBC 113 of 2017
• Counsel: Ms S.Ravai of Messrs Fazilat Shah Legal for the Applicant/plaintiff,Mr. Singh, In-House Counsel for Fiji Revenue & Customs Service
• Court: High Court (Fiji)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LAUTOKA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No. HBC 113 of 2017

Between:

Vinil Vikash Krishnan trading as Rainbow Imports And Wholesalers of Nadi.

Applicant/plaintiff

v.

Fiji Revenue And Customs Service Revenue & Customs Services Complex, Corner of Queen Elizabeth Drive, Nasese, Suva.

Respondent/Defendant

08 June 2018

Counsel:

Ms S.Ravai of Messrs Fazilat Shah Legal for the Applicant/plaintiff

Mr. Singh, In-House Counsel for Fiji Revenue & Customs Service

RULING

INTRODUCTION

1. The full background to this case is set out in the Learned Master's interlocutory Ruling dated 20 November 2017 (see Krishaan v Fiji Islands Revenue & Customs Authority [2017] FJHC 881; HBC113.2017 (20 November 2017).

2. By that Ruling, the Learned Master had declined an interlocutory application (Notice of Motion) by the Plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunctive Order against the Fiji Revenue & Customs Service (“FRCS”) It is this ruling which the Plaintiffs seek leave to appeal against.

3. By their Statement of Claim and Writ of Summons filed on 14 June 2017, the Plaintiffs allege that they had imported certain goods on 22 May 2017 from a Chinese Company namely Yuhang Import and Export Limited (“YIEL”) vide their invoice No. 17/40912. These, the Plaintiffs plead, were declared goods.

4. FRCS had assessed collectible customs on these declared goods at $2,846–20. This, the Plaintiffs have settled promptly. The Plaintiffs allege that despite their having fully settled the said collectible duty, and despite having sent a formal demand notice for the release of the goods, FRCS still has not released the goods. The Plaintiffs allege that, in keeping the goods, FRCS has acted in breach of its statutory duty. They claim to have suffered loss and damages as a result.

5. The Plaintiffs seek an Order in their Statement of Claim that FIRCA do forthwith release all declared goods as per invoices No. 17/40912 from Yuhang Import and Export Limited including General Damages for wrongful detention in the sum of $50,000.

6. The Notice of Motion in question in these proceedings seeks the same substantive order that the Plaintiffs plead in their Statement of Claim.

7. Notably, this matter is ready for trial. The Plaintiffs had Hied their Order 34 Summons on 07 May 2018 together with the Copy Pleadings. The Copy Pleadings includes a copy of the Pre-Trial conference Minutes duly executed by both counsel.

COMMENTS

8. As matter of general observation, it is extremely hard to obtain an interim mandatory injunction. Notably, the Master was aware of this, having noted at paragraph 13 of his ruling that the test for mandatory injunctions is far more stringent than the American Cyanamid test for interim prohibitory injunctions.

The Master had referred to the oft cited case of Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris & Anor [1969] 2 All ER 576 where at pages 579 and 580 the Court sets out the cardinal principles which have guided the courts on the granting or refusal of a mandatory injunction:

The grant of a mandatory injunction is, of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a negative injunction can never be “as of course”. Every case must depend essentially on its own particular circumstances. Any general principles for it application can only be laid down in the most general terms:

• 1. A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very...