Kila Tutura v Joseph Ng and Econ Investment Limited (2005) N2924

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 21 October 2005
• Citation: (2005) N2924
• Docket Number: WS 844 of 2001
• Year: 2005

Full Title: WS 844 of 2001; Kila Tutura v Joseph Ng and Econ Investment Limited (2005) N2924

National Court: Gavara–Nanu J

Judgment Delivered: 21 October 2005

1 CIVIL LAW—Practice and Procedure—Default judgment—Default judgment entered against defendants—Liability not an issue—Defendants raising and relying upon matters relating to the issue of liability—Plaintiff not objecting to such matters—Power of the Court to exclude such matters from being considered – Defendants effectively having no defence—Plaintiff's claim effectively undefended—Damages awarded in full upon proof.

2 Jonathan Mangope Paraia v Jacov Yansuan & 3 Ors N134, KL Engineering and Constuctions (PNG) Ltd v Damansara Forest Products (PNG) Ltd [2002] PNGLR 411, Keith Reid v Murray Hallam and Allcad Pty Limited N1337, Komaip Trading v George Wagulo and The State [1995] PNGLR 165, Lalip and Ors v Fred Sekiot and The State N1457, Pande Manase v Peter Andan and The State N2408, Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation v Jeff Tole S.C 694, MVIT v James Pupune [1993] PNGLR 370, MVIT v Salio Tabanto [1995] PNGLR 214, Uma More v University of Papua New Guinea [1985] PNGLR 401 referred to

___________________________

Gavara–Nanu J: This case first came before me on 8 August 2002, for assessment of damages after a default judgment was entered against the defendants on 12th December, 2001. However, the case was part–heard when it was discovered that some of the figures provided by the Department of Labour for plaintiff's overtime claims required verification.

At the hearing, the plaintiff gave evidence and her two affidavits were also tendered. Mr Herman Gire of the Department of Labour also gave evidence for the plaintiff and it was during his evidence that it was discovered that there were possible errors in the figures put forward for the plaintiff's overtime claims. The Court therefore directed the parties to go back and discuss the figures and have them verified by the Department of Labour with a view that the parties may settle. The case was adjourned generally and the parties were directed to advise the Court when they were ready. The case was eventually tried fully on 20 October, 2004, after the parties failed to reach a settlement.

Liability is not an issue before the Court as a default judgment was obtained against the defendants. The plaintiff's claim is for unpaid overtime wages by the defendants. The first defendant is the Managing Director of the second defendant which is a company duly incorporated in Papua New Guinea.

The plaintiff claims that she was employed by the defendants in their VIP Lounge Club in Port Moresby from 18...