The High Court in Suva has refused competing applications by the Fiji Roads Authority (FRA) and Stantec New Zealand Limited and three former employees, holding the dispute must first be decided by the Court of Appeal.
Delivering judgment on 8 January 2026, Justice Savenaca Banuve said the court could not grant the “composite orders” sought by both sides because the key issues remain before the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeals ABU017/2018 and ABU074/2019.
The dispute stems from a 2012 consultancy agreement under which Stantec was engaged to provide road engineering and program management services during reforms that created the Fiji Roads Authority. The agreement was amended three times as the scope expanded, and Stantec terminated it on 23 September 2016 following non-payment of several invoices.
FRA filed Civil Action HBC 227 of 2017, seeking declarations and, alternatively, damages and repayment of sums it says were improperly claimed.
Instead of filing a defence, the defendants pursued stays and referrals to mediation or international arbitration, relying on dispute resolution clauses referencing ICC Rules. The High Court refused a stay and referral to arbitration in March 2019. The Court of Appeal later granted leave to appeal in June 2020, refused a stay, and directed that the appeals be listed urgently.
Justice Banuve noted that despite that direction, Stantec proceeded to initiate ICC arbitration and obtained interim orders restraining FRA from pursuing court proceedings for matters said to be covered by the arbitration agreement. The defendants argued circumstances had changed, pointing to unsuccessful mediation and the dispute being “validly submitted to arbitration”.
However, the judge said the court was “not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that there is a change in circumstance that warrant submission of the dispute to arbitration,” given the dispute was already before the Court of Appeal.
The defendants sought recognition and enforcement of a final arbitral award and a stay of FRA’s civil claim, including on grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process. FRA, in turn, sought default judgment and orders to set aside the partial and final arbitral awards.
“The Court cannot possibly see a way for it to grant the composite orders sought by the parties, given the dispute is properly before the Court of Appeal,” Justice Banuve said.
The applications were refused pending determination of the appeals, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
