Air Niugini v Elizabeth Talum

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Brown J
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1992
• Citation: [1992] PNGLR 296
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1992
• Judgement Number: N1130

National Court: Brown J

Judgment Delivered: 20 November 1992

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

AIR NIUGINI

V

ELIZABETH TALUM

Waigani

Brown J

20 November 1992

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Writ of possession of land — Real prejudice must be shown to delay issue — Relevant principles O 13 r 3 National Court Rules.

REAL PROPERTY — Nature of interest of employee in accommodation provided by employer.

Facts

These are succinctly set out in the judgment.

Held

1. An employee who occupies accommodation of his employer has no right to remain in occupancy on the termination of his service. He may have a right to damages for unlawful dismissal.

2. Where an "order" in an earlier motion for injunction to stay eviction action amounts to a judgment for possession, real prejudice must be shown to warrant delay of the owner's right to possession. No real prejudice has been shown.

Cases Cited

Malai v PNG Teachers Association [1992] PNGLR 568.

National Airline Employees' Association of PNG v National Airline Commission (No 2) [1992] PNGLR 291.

Robinson v National Airlines Commission [1983] PNGLR 476.

Counsel

J Sleight, for the applicant.

P Paraka, for the respondents.

20 November 1992

BROWN J: On 6 November 1992, I gave judgment for the National Airline Commission (Commission), dismissing a motion by the National Airline Employees' Association (Association), sought in these terms:

"That the Defendant (Commission) be restrained from evicting members of the plaintiff Union (Association) from their company residences until the claims as to unlawful dismissals and suspensions contained in the W.S. No. 835 of 1992 are finally determined by the Court".

Mr Sleight now comes by way of originating summons for the plaintiff, relying on an affidavit by the Director — Personnel of Air Niugini, seeking that the Commission have a writ of possession of the premises forthwith. The Commission's application is brought pursuant to O 13 r 3, which provides for the enforcement of judgment in relation to possession of land. Pursuant to O 13 r 1 (a), judgment is defined to include an order. I find that the order I made on 6 November, having regard to the reasons amounts to a "judgment for possession" for the purposes of r 3 (1).

In the judgment, [1992] PNGLR at 295, I said:

"Further the applicant should give an undertaking as to damages before the Courts will entertain applications which affect proprietary rights. Here the Commission asserts that it owns the premises and, even were the employees still under contract to the Commission,...