Court orders Fiji Airways to answer B737 lease questions

By Andrew Curran.

Lawyers for a former Fiji Airways pilot will be allowed to question the airline about an aircraft lease agreement, according to a June 2026 High Court of Fiji ruling first reported by the Fiji Times.

Former First Officer Jitendra Vishal Maharaj is suing his former employer for negligence and breaches of its duty of care, alleging he was compelled to operate an aircraft that had previously demonstrated a serious pressurisation fault.

The matter is Jitendra Vishal Maharaj v. Air Pacific Limited (trading as Fiji Airways). The civil action case number is HBC 290 of 2020. The matter is been heard in the civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Fiji (Central Division at Suva).

Maharaj says Fiji Airways failed to provide a safe workplace, safe equipment and properly maintained aircraft. He alleges its duty was breached when the airline knowingly exposed him to unsafe conditions by operating an aircraft with unresolved pressurisation defects.

Maharaj claims this negligence directly caused him severe barotrauma, hearing loss, vestibular dysfunction and other medical complications, leaving him permanently unable to work as a pilot.

The case was first filed in 2020 and centres on an October 2017 incident when, during a flight from Kiritimati (CXI) to Honolulu (HNL), the aircraft suffered a critical pressurisation failure. The aircraft involved was a B737-700 registered as DQ-FJF (MSN 28878/96).

One month earlier, the same aircraft had departed Auckland (AKL) for Suva (SUV) but was forced to return to New Zealand because of a problem with the crew oxygen supply. Maharaj’s filing alleges Fiji Airways continued operating the aircraft after that incident without rectifying the defects.

Fiji Airways alleges contributory negligence

In its defence, Fiji Airways says the B737 was safe and serviceable at all times, having been certified by licensed engineers under the Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji's approved maintenance system and Boeing's maintenance programme. The airline says the pressurisation faults encountered were managed within established redundancy systems and rectified through appropriate maintenance and troubleshooting.

Fiji Airways also argues that Maharaj's injuries and losses were not caused by its negligence and, if they were, were contributed to by Maharaj's own actions.

The airline alleges contributory negligence, claiming Maharaj failed to identify and advise that one engine bleed system remained operational, failed to complete the "BLEED TRIP OFF" checklist, including resetting the non-functional bleed valve, and failed to follow company procedures by contacting San Francisco Radio rather than broadcasting his intentions on the required VHF frequencies.

Fiji Airways argues these failures diverted Maharaj's attention from monitoring the aircraft's systems and completing the checklist, thereby prolonging the descent and exacerbating the situation.

Lawyers for First Officer want to question Fiji Airways about lease agreement

Maharaj denies those allegations. His lawyers sought information about the aircraft's lease agreement, arguing it was central to their case. In particular, they were seeking details relating to maintenance obligations, which they contend is highly relevant given the aircraft's involvement in two separate incidents. Fiji Airways opposed providing most of the information.

DQ-FJF was leased from Willis Lease Finance. Fiji Airways withdrew the aircraft from service in 2020 and returned it to the lessor.

A hearing was held in Suva in mid-2025 during which both parties presented arguments regarding the contents of the lease agreement. The issues before the court were whether the agreement was relevant to the dispute, whether it was protected by commercial confidentiality, and whether Fiji Airways could be compelled to answer questions about its contents.

Court rules in favour of the first officer

Twelve months later, Acting Master Liyanage Kashyapa Wickramasekara ruled that the lease agreement was directly relevant to the issue of liability.

“The plaintiff has argued that the lease agreement may contain provisions stipulating a limited warranty of airworthiness or distinct obligations regarding the aircraft’s fitness for flight,” the ruling states.

“Such terms are critical to determining whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of potential defects or operational limitations. The court accepts that this notice is particularly significant given the aircraft’s involvement in both a prior incident and the subsequent mishap resulting in the plaintiff’s injuries."

“The terms governing the aircraft’s operational integrity bear upon the defendant’s duty of care and the allegation of negligence.”

Fiji Airways told to answer most lease agreement questions

Maharaj’s lawyers had previously submitted 21 interrogatories relating to the lease agreement to support their application. Fiji Airways argued that seven of those questions were “embarrassing and/or not relevant to the matters in issue in the proceedings”, while a further four were also not relevant. The remaining questions were answered, although the responses were often formulaic and repetitive.

Wickramasekara considered each interrogatory individually. He excluded three, amended two and allowed the remainder to proceed.

The excluded and amended questions related to ambiguous, irrelevant or privileged matters. The approved questions concern the lease agreement, aircraft maintenance obligations, return conditions, inspections and other operational matters.

At the June 24 hearing, Maharaj’s lawyers were given two weeks to resubmit the revised interrogatories to Fiji Airways. The airline was then given 21 days, until July 22, to provide complete and precise answers.

You can read the full court ruling here.

Photo: AI-Generated.

Contact the writer: andrew@aerosouthpacific.com

Top of Form