The High Court in Suva has declined the competing applications from the Fiji Roads Authority (FRA) and Stantec New Zealand Limited, along with three of its former employees, determining that the matter should first be resolved by the Court of Appeal.
Justice Savenaca Banuve delivered the ruling on January 8, 2026, stating that the court could not issue the “composite orders” requested by either party since key issues are still pending before the Court of Appeal in ongoing Civil Appeals ABU017/2018 and ABU074/2019.
This legal dispute traces back to a consultancy agreement established in 2012, through which Stantec was contracted to deliver road engineering and program management services during the reforms that led to the creation of the Fiji Roads Authority. The agreement underwent three amendments as the scope of work expanded, but Stantec terminated the contract on September 23, 2016, following the non-payment of several invoices.
In response, FRA initiated Civil Action HBC 227 of 2017, seeking declarations and alternative remedies, including damages and repayment of amounts the authority claims were improperly billed. Instead of providing a defense, the defendants opted to seek stays and referral to mediation or international arbitration based on clauses that referenced ICC Rules. The High Court previously refused a stay and arbitration referral in March 2019. The Court of Appeal later granted leave to appeal in June 2020, did not grant a stay, and instructed that the appeals be expedited.
Justice Banuve observed that Stantec had proceeded to initiate ICC arbitration and secured interim orders that prohibited FRA from pursuing court action regarding issues covered by the arbitration agreement, despite the Court of Appeal’s earlier directive. The defendants claimed that circumstances had changed, noting the unsuccessful mediation and asserting that the dispute had been “validly submitted to arbitration.”
However, Justice Banuve expressed skepticism, asserting that there was not enough evidence to suggest a significant change in circumstances justifying arbitration while the matter was under consideration by the Court of Appeal. The defendants requested recognition and enforcement of a final arbitral award, alongside a stay of FRA’s civil claim, citing issues such as estoppel and abuse of process. Conversely, FRA sought a default judgment alongside orders to annul both 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 concluded. As a result, the applications were denied pending the resolution of the appeals, with each party required to bear its own costs.
This ruling reaffirms the importance of following procedural protocols in legal disputes and highlights the ongoing complexities of the arbitration process within Fiji’s legal framework. The decision promotes the integrity of legal proceedings, ensuring that parties adhere to agreed-upon dispute resolution pathways.
Leave a comment