Aruling on an application, to strike out a Fiji Times judicial review bid over the award of the Government advertising contract, will be made on September 8.

This after the High Court in Suva judge, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga, heard all the parties and noted their written submissions yesterday.

Emmanuel Narayan of Patel Sharma Lawyers appeared for Fiji Sun, Jon Apted and Melvin Chand of Munro Leys appeared for the applicant (Fiji Times) and Robyn Ann Mani and Preetika Prasad of Attorney-General’s Chambers appeared for the respondents (the Solicitor-General).

Ms Prasad sought for the matter to be struck out as it was an abuse of court process, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

Arguments were also made that on August 16, new tenders had been called for by the Fiji Procurements Office for the publication of Government advertisements and notices in print media for the fiscal year 2016 – 2017.

Ms Prasad also argued that the orders that were being sought by the applicant had already been achieved due to the new tender process now in place and as a result the judicial review sought had now become ‘moot’.

Mr Narayan in support of the Respondent’s Strike Out application argued that there was no actual controversy left to be determined by this court between parties and due to the new tender process.

The orders as sought in the applicant’s originating motion had already been complied with.

Mr Narayan also raised the issue of the applicant seeking orders which would affect any tender process for Government advertisements and notices which he said would be impractical as it related to awards made in the future.

He further stated that there was now a new fiscal year and a new tender process had started and the tender would close on the September 2.

Mr Apted argued that the court did not have powers to strike out under Order 18, Rule 18 of the High Court Rules as the relevant orders dealing with striking under the said rules did not apply to originating motions or affidavits.

Mr Apted also submitted that the judicial review had not become moot and that “mootness is a matter for the substantive hearing”.

He also argued that the applicant had a constitutional right to be heard in the first instance.

Edited by Jonathan Bryce

Feedback: jessica.gounder@fijisun.com.fj