Jack Lundu Yalao v MVIT

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (1995) N1386
• Date: 08 December 1995
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1995

National Court: Injia J

Judgment Delivered: 8 December 1995

1 Practice and procedure—application to re–open trial at the end of trial, after written submissions on evidence filed—discretion—grounds for exercising discretion—nature and importance to the issues in the trial of proposed new evidence

2 Evidence—fresh evidence—information known to defendant but not to the plaintiff

3 Practice and procedure—pleadings—defence—method of traversing fact alleged in statement of claim—appropriateness—whether defendant who knows or should know an alleged matter of mixed fact and law may plead non–admission due to lack of knowledge of the fact—whether such pleading is appropriate to the nature of the plaintiff's pleadings, or discloses no reasonable defence, or causes unnecessary prejudice to the plaintiff, or is an abuse of the court's process—National Court Rules O8 r21(2), r27

4 Statute—claim for damages pursuant to Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Ch295)—appropriateness of pleadings in the context of the nature and extent of the MVIT's liability for death or personal injury arising from insured, uninsured, and unidentified motor vehicles—s44, s50, s53, s54(1), s54(6), s57(1)(b),(c)

5 Andreas Hara v MVIT, Unreported and Unnumbered decision of National Court given on 19 September 1994)

___________________________

Injia J: This is the plaintiff's application to re–open the trial to allow the plaintiff to call fresh evidence as to the third–party insurance status of the subject motor vehicle which was involved in an accident at Panguna in 1987. If the application is successful, the plaintiff intends to call the defendant's claims manager Mr Paul Butler to give evidence and to produce documents relating to the subject motor vehicle identified as a Datsun 180B reg. No. AE1 997, certificate of insurance No. 57980.

The application has been made after the end of the trial and written submissions were already filed. It appears that the plaintiff discovered the need to call this evidence from the defendant's submission in which the defendant denied liability on the basis inter–alia, that the plaintiff had failed to prove the current third party insurance status of the subject motor vehicle.

At the trial, the plaintiff produced evidence from Mr Chris Passongo showing that he was the driver of a motor vehicle, a Datsun 120Y reg. No. ABU:331 in which the plaintiff was a passenger. On 5 November 1987, he drove the vehicle on the Espie Highway in Bougainville and was heading towards Panguna when another vehicle which he only identified as a Datsun 180B came from the opposite direction downhill, overtook another vehicle and collided into his motor vehicle thereby causing his vehicle to overturn and injuring him and the plaintiff. Mr Passongo did not identify the insurance and registration number, driver and the owner of the Datsun 180B. This vehicle is however identified in the plaintiff's statement of claim (in para 3) as a Datsun 180B Reg. No. AEI 997 which was owned by Joe Simu and driven by Salang Senge. And then in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, it was alleged that the vehicle was insured at the material time. The plaintiff's action was based solely on the negligent driving of the Datsun 180B and...