The High Court in Suva has ruled in favor of Parvish Nikesh Kumar, the director of Pacific Specialist Healthcare (PSH), ordering the removal of a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) which had previously been imposed due to alleged unpaid contributions exceeding $1 million for locum doctors. The Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) had established a debt against PSH regarding outstanding payments related to these contributions.
The DPO was enforced to prevent Mr. Kumar’s departure from Fiji while the FNPF sought to recover the claimed debt. The allegations arose after an FNPF inspector visited PSH on April 3, which led to a finding that the hospital owed outstanding contributions for the locum doctors from 2021 to 2025, totaling $1,049,391.54 plus penalties of $145,400. PSH was instructed to settle this amount within seven days upon receiving the notice on June 10.
Mr. Kumar defended PSH’s position, asserting that the locum doctors were hired under service contracts and not regarded as employees, thus attributing the non-payment of contributions. He pointed out that PSH had duly paid its contributions for full-time employees and that it had met tax obligations to the Fiji Revenue and Customs Service (FRCS) regarding the locums.
In the proceedings, Justice Dane Tuiqereqere determined that the issuance of a DPO was not an appropriate debt collection method, stating, “There are tools available to the defendant to recover unpaid contributions” outlined in the FNPF Act. He criticized the FNPF for utilizing DPOs against the shareholders of PSH without properly engaging the specified recovery remedies.
Justice Tuiqereqere further noted that he was unconvinced Mr. Kumar bore personal liability for PSH’s debts and questioned the legitimacy of the DPO against him. Additionally, the court ordered the FNPF to compensate Mr. Kumar $2,500 for the imposition of the order.
This case highlights the complexities surrounding employment classifications and liability issues in the healthcare sector in Fiji. The ruling not only reinforces the judicial checks on procedural practices within financial institutions but also brings attention to the rights of business owners amidst regulatory compliance challenges.