Concord Pacific Limited and Paiso Company Limited v Thomas Nen — Managing Director — Papua New Guinea Forest Authority and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2000) N1981

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Sheehan J
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2000
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [2000] PNGLR 47
• Year: 2000
• Judgement Number: N1981

Full Title: Concord Pacific Limited and Paiso Company Limited v Thomas Nen — Managing Director — Papua New Guinea Forest Authority and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2000) N1981

National Court: Sheehan J

Judgment Delivered: 31 July 2000

N1981

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

OS 739 of 1999

BETWEEN:

CONCORD PACIFIC LIMITED

First Plaintiff

AND:

PAISO COMPANY LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND:

THOMAS NEN – MANAGING DIRECTOR –

PAPUA NEW GUINEA FOREST AUTHORITY

First Defendant

AND:

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Third Defendant

Waigani: SHEEHAN, J.

2000: 31 July

Charge of Contempt - ruling.

Cases Cited:

Yap v Tan & Ors [1987] PNGLR 227

Hadkinson v Hadkinson 1952 ALLER 567

Chuck v Cremer 1846 47ER 820

Stancomb v Trowbridge U.D.C. 1910 2CH 190)

Mr F. Damem for the Plaintiff

Mr B. Ninai for the Defendants

The first Defendant Mr Thomas Nen the Managing Director of the Papua New Guinea Forest Authority is charged with acting in contempt of a Court order.

The essential facts are that this Court on 26th November 1999 issued interim orders restraining the Defendants from closing the operations of the Plaintiff companies and or restricting of logging and roading prescribed under a Timbers Authority issued under the Forestry Act 1991. The specific terms of that order are:

“1. The Defendants named herein, their agents or servants or such other persons are restrained from doing anything or taking actions or making any omissions which would have the effect of preventing the First and Second Plaintiff from undertaking any road construction work on Aiambak-Kiunge road Project pursuant to Timber Authority No. 024

2. That the First and Second Plaintiffs be allowed to operate under the Timber Authority No. 024 in the project area in question pending the final determination of the substantive action to be instituted by the Plaintiffs.”

Following that order the Plaintiff formally applied for and were granted leave to apply for judicial review of the First Defendants direction that all operations under the Timber Authority No. 024 should cease. That leave was granted on 14th December 1999 when a further order was made extending the interim junctions until the review was heard and decided. The wording of that order was:

“The Orders in nature of injunction granted on 29th November 1999 are extended until the completion of this Review”.

A sealed copy of the second order was served on the Defendant the following day, 15th December.

Notwithstanding these orders, by notice dated the 20th of April 2000 the First Defendants gave formal notice that the Plaintiffs cease operations under the Timber Authority. The actual notice given by the First Defendant and on which the charge of contempt is based, reads as follows:

“NATIONAL FOREST SERVICES

The Chairman

Paiso Limited

C/- Concord Pacific Limited

P O Box 1243

BOROKO

ATTENTION: David Kaya

Dear Sir

RE: EXPIRED TIMBER AUTHORITY (TA 1-2/94) KIUNGA/AIAMBAK ROADLINE PROJECT.

The Timber Authority No. (TA 1-2/94) held by you in respect to Kiunga/Aiambak Roadline Project expired on the 18th April, 2000.

You are advised to immediately cease all felling and roading operation upon receipt of this letter.

Logs that were felled before the expiry date should be snigged, hauled and disposed of accordingly.

For your adherence.

Your sincerely

THOMAS NEN

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Cc: Area Manager – Southern Region...