Richard HB Wood v Watking (PNG) Pty Ltd [1986] PNGLR 88

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kidu CJ, Bredmeyer J, Los J
• Judgment Date: 25 March 1986
• Citation: [1986] PNGLR 88
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1986
• Judgement Number: SC315

Full Title: Richard HB Wood v Watking (PNG) Pty Ltd [1986] PNGLR 88

Supreme Court: Kidu CJ, Bredmeyer J, Los J

Judgment Delivered: 25 March 1986

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

WOOD

V

WATKING (PNG) PTY LTD

Waigani

Kidu CJ Bredmeyer Los JJ

24-25 March 1986

APPEAL — Application for leave to appeal — Time for lodging — "Within 40 days after the date of the judgment" — Date of pronouncement not date of entry relevant date — Supreme Court Act (Ch No 37), s 17 — National Court Rules, O 12, r 3.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Appeal — Time for lodging — "Within 40 days after the date of the judgment" — Date of pronouncement not date of entry relevant date — Supreme Court Act (Ch No 37), s 17 — National Court Rules, O 12, r 3.

The Supreme Court Act (Ch No 37), s 17, requires that notice of appeal or application for leave to appeal be given "within 40 days after the date of the judgment in question".

Held

(1) Properly construed s 17 requires notice of an appeal or notice of an application for leave to appeal to be given within 40 days after the judgment is pronounced, and not after entry of judgment.

(2) Entry of judgment is not an essential preliminary to the lodging of an appeal under the Supreme Court Act (Ch No 37).

(3) Failure to enter judgment does not affect the running of the time limit prescribed by s 17.

Cases Cited

The Ship "Federal Huron" v OK Tedi Mining Ltd [1986] PNGLR 5.

Counsel

N Diacos, for the applicant.

T Griffiths, for the respondent.

25 March 1986

KIDU CJ BREDMEYER LOS JJ: This case is a dispute about whether an appeal has been lodged in time or out of time. Section 17 of the Supreme Court Act (Ch No 37) reads as follows:

"Time for appealing under division 2

Where a person desires to appeal to or to obtain leave to appeal from the Supreme Court, he shall give notice of appeal, or notice of his application for leave to appeal, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court within 40 days after the date of the judgement in question, or within such further period as is allowed by a judge upon application made to him within that period of 40 days."

On 28 November 1985 Barnett AJ (as he then was) gave judgment for the plaintiff in a contested manner. He found both defendants liable jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of K34,584.17. The judgment was given in open court and sixteen pages of reasons were read out or handed down at that time. No minute of the judgment was entered. On 11 February 1986, Mr Diacos, lawyer for the defendant, attempted to file a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court at the Registry and was refused by the Registrar as being out of time. Mr Diacos has applied to this Court for a direction that his appeal is competent and is within the time-limit. On 21 March a formal order was extracted by the plaintiff. That order reads as follows:

"Order

The court orders that:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of...