Ruma Construction Pty Limited v Christopher Smith

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kapi DCJ, Sakora J, Injia J
• Judgment Date: 25 March 1999
• Citation: (1999) SC600
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1999
• Judgement Number: SC600

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Sakora J, Injia J

Judgment Delivered: 25 March 1999

SC600

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCA No. 86 of 1997

BETWEEN:

RUMA CONSTRUCTION PTY

LIMITED

Appellant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER SMITH

Respondent

Waigani: Kapi DCJ., Sakora J., Injia J.

22nd, 25th March 1999

Supreme Court Act, s 14 (3) (b) — whether summary judgment is an interlocutory judgment.

W. Frizzell for the appellant

P. Payne for the respondent

25th March 1999.

BY THE COURT: The National Court entered summary judgment in this matter (WS 481 of 1997) on 10th November 1997 under the provisions of the National Court Rules (Rules). An application for leave to appeal against this decision together with a separate Notice of Appeal was filed on 19th December 1997. The Application for Leave has come before us for determination.

The relevant facts which gives rise to the application for leave may be summarised as follows. By a writ of summons (WS No. 481 of 1997) filed on 27th May 1997, Mr Christopher M Smith (respondent) claims specific performance of a contract and/or damages against Ruma Construction Pty Ltd (appellant) over a sale of property, Part Lot 3, Section 27, Granville, in the National Capital District. On the 30th May 1997, the respondent obtained orders to restrain the appellant from transferring, leasing or otherwise dealing with the said property pending the determination of the substantive cause of action.

On 30th July 1997, an order for specific performance was made in favour of the respondent. However, these orders were not effective because the property which was the subject of the orders was transferred and registered in the name of SJS Enterprise Pty Ltd on 3rd July 1997.

On 10th November 1997, the respondent set aside the specific performance orders and in substitute obtained summary judgment against the appellant with damages to be assessed. There is no question that the appellant was served with the motion for summary judgment. However, the order was made in absence of the appellant and its lawyers.

The appellant seeks to review this decision by this application for leave to appeal. No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory judgment except with the leave of the Supreme...