The Waterboard v The National Capital District Interim Commission and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1990) N864

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Brown J
• Judgment Date: 10 April 1990
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (1990) N864
• Year: 1990
• Judgement Number: N864

Full Title: The Waterboard v The National Capital District Interim Commission and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1990) N864

National Court: Brown J

Judgment Delivered: 10 April 1990

N864

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS 21 OF 1990

BETWEEN: THE WATERBOARD

PLAINTIFF

AND: THE NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT INTERIM COMMISSION

FIRST DEFENDANT

AND: THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

SECOND DEFENDANT

Waigani

Brown J

9-10 April 1990

BROWN J: Yesterday counsel for the first defendant indicated that he would call this morning the Secretary of the National Executive Council (NEC). During cross-examination of Mr Montford (the General Manager of the Waterboard and a witness for the plaintiff), counsel for the first defendant had shown to Mr Montford, NEC decision 6/87, which directed that implementation of a previous NEC decision be deferred pending a report. On cross-examination Mr Montford was asked:

Q: Do you hold the view that no formal decision to proceed need be made?

A: Yes I do.

In his case Mr Donigi read that NEC decision which was admissible in form and formed part of an affidavit of Mr Gaudi Kidu, the Deputy General Manager (Technical) of the Interim Commission. Mr Donigi indicated that the Secretary to the NEC, Mr Eka, had been subpoenaed to give evidence before this Court this morning. He indicated he would seek "an interpretation" of the decision made in 1987. Having cross-examined on Mr Kidu's document and obtained no answers which impinged on the accuracy of the NEC minute but which elicited the approach adopted by the witness Mr Montford, there is no ground established to impugn NEC decision 6/87. The NEC document produced is the best evidence and its construction is a matter of law.

Consequently there is no basis to call the Secretary on the accuracy or otherwise of that decision...