THE High Court will sit on September 21 to hear submissions on damages and costs orders against the Government following its decision to quash the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report into the appointment of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali.
Earlier this month Justice Dane Tuiqereqere delivered a 154-page judgment declaring the controversial COI report null and void in its entirety following separate judicial review applications filed by Ms Malimali, former attorney-general Graham Leung, current Fiji Law Society (FLS) president Wylie Clarke, and former president Laurel Vaurasi.
The judgment was the second blow to the Government in the COI saga after Ms Malimali successfully challenged her dismissal by President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu in June last year.
In the most recent case the four lawyers had argued that if their judicial review application was successful they were entitled to damages and the recovery of their legal costs for the reputational harm they had suffered from the release of the COI Report.
Justice Tuiqereqere ruled that the COI had unlawfully gone beyond the time set down for it to report to the President, had covered matters not in its terms of reference and made numerous procedural errors in not giving the applicants notice of adverse findings against them in the COI Report.
In his earlier judgement Justice Tuiqereqere had said he would leave the question of damages and costs on the four lawyers’ case to a separate hearing.
The judge called the parties before him yesterday to set a timetable for argument on the damages and costs issues.
He told lawyers the issues on which he wanted to hear arguments, including reviews of case law in other countries on the same issue.
He ordered all the parties to file written submissions by September 18 with argument to take place on the following Monday.
Among the issues the judge has asked the applicants to address is who should be liable for the damages and whether this should be individually or jointly. He also asked for submissions on his view that Justice David Ashton-Lewis could not be held liable for damages because of restrictions contained in the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
