Peter Lipsey v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [1993] PNGLR 405
• Date: 02 April 1993
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1993

National Court: Sheehan J

Judgment Delivered: 2 April 1993

1 Judgment—consent decree—application to set aside for fraud, mistake, or lack of authority in counsel—attorney acting on behalf of State had apparent normal authority to bind

___________________________

Sheehan J: On 11 of June 1992 judgment by consent was entered for the Plaintiff against the State. That judgment resulted from a joint approach to the Court by Mr Keta of the Solicitor–General's office acting on behalf of the State and Mr Gene of the Public Solicitors office acting for the Plaintiff. A formal agreement to settle drawn up in writing was submitted to Mr Justice Sakora for approval and judgment duly entered and sealed.

Now, some 6 months later the State seeks to have the judgment set aside upon the grounds that Mr Keta acted without authority; that is although a counsel in the Solicitor–General's office he was not specifically instructed by the Solicitor–General Mr Damem or empowered to act in this matter. Other counsel had there been instructed. Nonetheless, it is said, Mr Keta had in fact proceeded to settle the claim without proper instructions or authority. The judgment should therefore be set aside.

The application is opposed by counsel for the plaintiff it being submitted that Mr Keta as counsel for the State was at all material times counsel in the employ of the State, acting for the State in this and other matters. He was acting with uncontested authority...