National Capital District Building Authority v Namo Trading Limited (2001) SC663

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Los J, Injia J, Gavara–Nanu J
• Judgment Date: 23 February 2001
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: (2001) SC663
• Docket Number: National Capital District Commission v Namo Trading Limited
• Year: 2001
• Judgement Number: SC663

Full Title: National Capital District Commission v Namo Trading Limited; National Capital District Building Authority v Namo Trading Limited (2001) SC663

Supreme Court: Los J, Injia J, Gavara-Nanu J

Judgment Delivered: 23 February 2001

SC 663

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

1) SCA NO.58 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT COMMISSION

AND:

NAMO TRADING LIMITED

2) SCA NO. 59 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT BUILDING AUTHORITY

AND :

NAMO TRADING LIMITED

Waigani : Los, Injia & Gavara-Nanu, JJ

2001: February 20, 23

Supreme Court Act s.14(3)(b) — Whether summary judgment "for damages to be assessed" is an interlocutory judgment.

Cases cited in the judgment:

Ruma Construction Pty Limited v. Christopher Smith SC 600 [1999]

LA Jarden Collector of Agency Pty Ltd v. Richard Hill & Associates & Others SC 597 [1998]

The Electricity Commission of New South Wales v. Lapthorne (1971) 124 C.L.R. 177

K. Yalo, for the Applicant/Respondent

D. Goma, for the Respondent/Appellant

23 February 2001

BY THE COURT: This is an objection to competency of two separate but similar appeals in SCA 58 & 59/2000 which were lodged against one "summary judgment for damages to be assessed" in respect of WS No. 1328/99 entered against the two Appellants by the National Court at Waigani on 8 September 2000. The principal basis of the objection is that the judgment was interlocutory and leave to appeal was not obtained as required by s.14(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act (Chapter No.37).

Mr Yalo of Counsel for the Applicant submits that although the terms of the summary judgment in the present case is similar to the terms of the summary judgement in Ruma Construction Pty Ltd v. Christopher Smith SC 600 (1999) ("Ruma") in that both judgments were "summary judgments for damages to be assessed", and the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ruma that a summary judgment is a final judgment for which leave to appeal is not required must be confined to its own facts. He submits the Plaintiff's main claim in that case was for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land and because the summary judgement on liability was final and dispositive of the Plaintiff's principal claim, the summary judgment was final. He submits the gist of the Plaintiff's action in the present case being is one of damages in tort for damage to property, and because the summary judgement was determinitive of the issue of liability only and damages were to be assessed as a matter of course, the summary judgment was interlocutory. He relies on the High Court of Australia, decision in the Electricity Commission of N.S.W. v. Lapthorne [1971] C.L.R. 177.

Mr Goma of Counsel for the Respondent/Appellant submits that the principle in Ruma is equally applicable to the present case and when adopted and applied, the objection should fail. He submits the Supreme Court in Ruma considered the issue of a summary judgment "for damages to be assessed" and enunciated a principle which is all encompassing and it is applicable to the present case.

In Ruma, the Supreme Court said:

"The issue before us is; whether the summary judgement entered is an interlocutory judgment. The cases have established in determining this issue that there are two tests which may be applied. The tests are first that the court must look at the nature of the application to the court and not the order the court eventually made. Second the court must look at whether the judgment or order made finally disposes of...