In the latest development, the High Court in Suva has thrown out a more than $10 million claim by two seafood operators who alleged a 2012 fisheries policy change ruined their bycatch fish business. Justice Thusara Rajasinghe dismissed the writ of summons and statement of claim in full on March 18, ruling the action was both statute‑barred and disclosed “no reasonable cause of action” at law.
Plaintiffs Eroni Bilo and Aisake Kaunisela had sued the Government — naming the Minister for Fisheries and Forest, the then Prime Minister and the Attorney‑General as defendants — alleging a Ministry of Fisheries decision in 2012 permitted shipping agents and fish processing companies to offload bycatch. The pair argued that change undercut an earlier affirmative‑action approach designed to benefit local operators, leading to financial losses and the eventual collapse of their business.
Justice Rajasinghe found the claim impermissible on two grounds. First, she said the case raised matters of government policy and public discretion that did not give rise to a private law duty of care and therefore could not sustain a negligence-style claim. “The court cannot adjudicate on such policy matters,” the judgment noted, adding that decisions involving social, economic and political considerations fall outside the scope of common law negligence claims.
Second, the judge concluded the plaintiffs’ action was statute‑barred under the Limitation Act. The Act requires actions to be commenced within six years of the impugned decision; because the disputed policy date was 2012 and the case was filed in 2020, the court held the claim was out of time.
As a consequence, the High Court struck out the legal action and ordered Bilo and Kaunisela to pay $2,000 in costs to the defendants. The judgment therefore resolves the plaintiffs’ demand for more than $10 million in damages without reaching the substantive merits of whether the policy change caused their alleged losses.
The ruling underscores judicial reluctance to convert executive policy decisions into private law claims, and it highlights the strict application of statutory limitation periods in commercial disputes against the State. The outcome leaves the plaintiffs without a remedy in this litigation; the judgment did not address whether any other legal avenues remain open.
Leave a comment