Vincent Mirupas trading as Mirupasi Lawyers v Miller Bonou & 92 Others of Sara Clan (2009) SC1049

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Injia CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2009
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: (2009) SC1049
• Docket Number: SCA NO 45 OF 2008
• Year: 2009
• Judgement Number: SC1049

Full Title: SCA NO 45 OF 2008; Vincent Mirupas trading as Mirupasi Lawyers v Miller Bonou & 92 Others of Sara Clan (2009) SC1049

Supreme Court: Injia CJ

Judgment Delivered: 18 December 2009

SC1049

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCA NO 45 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

VINCENT MIRUPAS trading as MIRUPASI LAWYERS

Appellant

AND:

MILLER BONOU & 92 OTHERS OF SARA CLAN

Respondent

Waigani: Injia CJ

2009: 18th December

APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – appeal pertaining to decision of National Court ordering appellant to pay judgment sum into court trust account pending substantive hearing on bill of costs – s.63 Lawyers Act

APPEAL – main issue – whether applicant has an arguable case to warrant hearing on merits – onus on applicant to show application has merits – whether trial judge had jurisdiction to make order in view of the Lawyers Act – whether the judge misapprehended the fact in relation to evidence before court as to payment of the balance of judgment amount – trial judge erred in law and fact in assuming jurisdiction – arguable case been demonstrated – leave granted

Cases Cited:

Papua New Guinea Cases

Chan v Ombudsman Commission [1999] PNGLR 258

Breckwoldt & Co (NG) Pty Ltd v Groyke [1974] PNGLR 106

Curtain Brothers (PNG) Ltd v UPNG (2005) SC788

Overseas Cases

Australia Coal Shale Employees Union v The Commonwealth (1956) 94 CLR 621

Counsel:

M Pokia, for the Appellant

P Mambei, for the Respondents

21st May, 2009

1. INJIA CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against a ruling of the National Court given on 10th June 2008 in National Court proceedings OS No 61 of 2007 in which the judge ordered the judgment sum of K534,000.00 received by the appellant on behalf of the respondents, to be paid into Court pending filing of fresh proceedings by the respondent contesting appellant’s bill of costs.

2. A brief background of this application is this, the appeal is from a ruling in respect of a completed matter in which judgment had been given in favour of the plaintiffs (now respondents). The judgment had been satisfied and paid to the plaintiff’s lawyer (now appellant). The appellant paid the money into its trust account and later rendered a bill of costs in the sum of K248,843.25. The appellant deducted this amount for its costs and paid the balance to the respondents. The respondents disputed the bill of costs and the payment. The respondents filed a Notice of Motion in OS 61 of 2007 seeking orders for the judgment amount to be paid into court and to have the bill taxed. IN separate fresh proceedings in OS 322 of 2008, the appellant sought permanent injunction to stop the proceedings on the concluded proceedings in OS 61 of 2007 being conducted. The appellant also filed a motion in the fresh proceedings seeking interim stay of the hearing of the respondents motion in OS 61 of 2007. The trial judge declined to entertain the appellant’s notice of motion and dealt with the respondent’s notice of motion. The trial judge ordered the judgment sum of K534,000.00 received by the appellant on behalf of the respondents, to be paid into Court pending filing of fresh proceedings by the respondent contesting appellant’s bill of costs, pursuant to s.63 of the...