Court rejects ATSET bid

Listen to this article:

Court rejects ATSET bid

THE High Court in Lautoka has struck out and dismissed an application by trustees of the Air Terminal Services Employees Trust (ATSET) against the Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji, Attorney-General on behalf of the permanent secretary for the Ministry of Economy, Air Terminal Services Ltd and the ATS company secretary.

The High Court has also ordered ATSET to pay $4000 in costs to CAAF, the A-G’s office, ATS and the ATS company secretary — $1000 for each defendant.

According to a statement issued by the Department of Information, ATSET had, inter alia alleged that the re-assignment of 51 per cent of ATS shares from CAAF to Government in 2009 was in breach of the articles of association of ATS.

ATSET had also alleged that the articles of association of ATS which expressly permitted the removal of directors of ATS was oppressive and prejudicial to ATSET, and that the removal of Jai D Singh, Manasa Ratuvili and Kevueli Tunidau from the board of directors of ATS was illegal, oppressive, null and void.

In its ruling delivered on February 6, 2018, the High Court held that ATSET’s application was a case which was both “bad in law” and “weak on evidence”, and struck out and wholly dismissed the application by ATSET.

“With respect to the claim against the re-assignment of 51 per cent of ATS shares from CAAF to the Government, the High Court noted that ATSET was aware as early as October 2009 of the re-assignment, and that ATSET did not raise any objection to the re-assignment since October 2009,” the statement read.

In response to ATSET’s claim against the removal of Mr Singh, Mr Ratuvili, and Mr Tunidau from the ATS board of directors, the High Court held that the removal of directors was done in accordance with ATS’ articles of association which was formulated when ATS was formed in 1980.

The High Court held that no issue has been raised by ATSET with respect to the relevant provisions of the AoA and cited as an example when Rajeshwar Singh was removed as an ATSET director in 2011.

“The High Court further noted that ATSET has not taken any action, even to propose the removal or amendment of the AoA.

“The High Court held that the principle of acquiescence applies in law and that, by their own conduct and delay, ATSET was stopped from making any claim against the AoA.

Array
(
    [post_type] => post
    [post_status] => publish
    [orderby] => date
    [order] => DESC
    [update_post_term_cache] => 
    [update_post_meta_cache] => 
    [cache_results] => 
    [category__in] => 1
    [posts_per_page] => 4
    [offset] => 0
    [no_found_rows] => 1
    [date_query] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [after] => Array
                        (
                            [year] => 2023
                            [month] => 12
                            [day] => 28
                        )

                    [inclusive] => 1
                )

        )

)

No Posts found for specific category