PNG Oxygen Ltd v Oxy-Fuel Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2017) N7009
• Date: 16 March 2017
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2017

Full : WS 1232 of 2013; PNG Oxygen Limited v Oxy-Fuel Limited and Dhaka (PNG) Limited and Kok Chuan Lim (2017) N7009

National Court: Hartshorn J

Judgment Delivered: 16 March 2017

N7009

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 1232 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

PNG OXYGEN LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

OXY-FUEL LIMITED

First Defendant

AND

DHAKA (PNG) LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

KOK CHUAN LIM

Third Defendant

Waigani: Hartshorn J

2016: 20th April &16th May

2017:16th March

Trial

Counsel:

Mr. S. Gor, for the Plaintiff

Mr. R. Ababa, for the Third Defendant

16th March, 2017

1. HARTSHORN J: PNG Oxygen Ltd (PNG Oxygen) sues Oxy-Fuel Ltd (Oxy Fuel), Dhaka (PNG) Ltd (Dhaka) and Mr. Kok Chuan Lim (Mr. Lim) for conspiracy against, and the defrauding and injuring of, PNG Oxygen in its business. It seeks amongst others, judgment and damages.

2. I permitted the trial of the proceeding to proceed in the absence of representation of Oxy Fuel and Dhaka as I was satisfied that they had properly been made aware of the date and time of the trial.

3. Oxy Fuel and Dhaka have not filed any affidavits or adduced any evidence to rebut the allegations made, and the case brought against them, by PNG Oxygen. Following a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence given on behalf of PNG Oxygen, I am satisfied that PNG Oxygen has properly established its case against Oxy Fuel and Dhaka on the balance of probabilities.

4. As to PNG Oxygen’s claims against Mr. Lim, Mr. Lim gave evidence by way of two affidavits but was not present at the trial notwithstanding that notice to cross examine him had been given. His evidence was allowed to be tendered subject to the court deciding what weight if any should be given to it.

5. It was submitted on behalf of Mr. Lim that amongst others, that PNG Oxygen had not pleaded that Mr. Lim had breached a fiduciary duty owed to it. As to the submission, it is for PNG Oxygen to decide what causes of action it should plead.

6. It was further submitted that PNG Oxygen had not properly pleaded and particularised its allegations of fraud against Mr. Lim. The decisions in Papua Club Inc v. Nusaum Holdings Ltd (2004) N2603 and my decision in National Fisheries Authority v. New Britain Resources Development Ltd (2015) N6078 and cases referred to therein, were cited in support of this submission.

7. From a perusal of the statement of claim, I am satisfied that Mr. Lim has been given sufficient notice of the case made against him and that the allegations of fraud and dishonesty have been sufficiently particularized. I note also that Mr. Lim has filed a detailed amended defence. I reject this submission made on behalf of Mr. Lim in this regard.

8. As to the evidence of Mr. Lim, it consists mainly of denials and lack of knowledge. In attempting to determine the veracity of Mr. Lim’s evidence, I am mindful of his absence for the purposes of cross examination, notwithstanding that he was required for such purpose, the evidence given on behalf of PNG Oxygen and the performance of its witnesses during their cross-examination. I am...