Jacob Sanga Kumbu v Dr Nicholas Mann

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2012) N4784
• Date: 14 September 2012
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2012

Full : OS (JR) NO 8 of 2009; Jacob Sanga Kumbu v Dr Nicholas Mann, Chairman, Council Appeal Committee, University of Papua New Guinea and University of Papua New Guinea and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2012) N4784

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 14 September 2012

COSTS—basis of costs order: whether costs on a solicitor-client basis justified—self-represented litigant: whether costs should be restricted to out-of-pocket expenses.

The plaintiff, after being granted an application for judicial review, applied by motion for costs on a solicitor and client basis. Two issues arose: (1) whether the awarding of costs on a solicitor and client basis was justified by the circumstances in which the application for judicial review was granted; (2) whether the fact that the plaintiff (a law student) represented himself was relevant to the basis on which the order for costs should be made.

Held:

(1) An order for costs on a solicitor and client basis is intended to signify the court’s disapproval of the conduct by a party of court proceedings and is justified where, for example, there has been a rejection of a settlement which would, if accepted, have resulted in a better outcome than that which was obtained, or where the conduct of a party, either before or during the proceedings, can be said to warrant such an order or there are special or unusual circumstances.

(2) Here, ordering costs on a solicitor and client basis was as a matter of principle justified as the plaintiff had succeeded emphatically at the trial, exposing numerous errors of law by the defendants which he had previously drawn to their attention, the defendants had been a party to three previous judicial proceedings in which similar errors of law had been exposed, the defendants had made no serious attempt to settle the matter and the effect of prolonging the proceedings for three years after the granting of leave for judicial review was to cause unnecessary hardship to the plaintiff.

(3) That the plaintiff was not a lawyer admitted to practise and that he represented himself in the proceedings do not make it inappropriate to order that his costs, in addition to out-of-pocket expenses, be paid to him (Canisius Karingu v Papua New Guinea Law Society (2001) SC674 followed).

(4) The first and second defendants shall pay the plaintiff’s costs on solicitor-client basis, which shall if not agreed be taxed.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Canisius Karingu v Papua New Guinea Law Society (2001) SC674

Don Pomb Polye v Jimson Sauk Papkai [2000] PNGLR 166

Hii Yii Ann v Canisius Karingu (2003) SC718

Island Helicopter Services Ltd v Wilson Sagati (2008) N3340

Jacob Sanga Kumbu v Dr Nicholas Mann, UPNG & The State (2012) N4746

John Kombra v Bernard Kipit (2009) N3756

Joshua Giru v Willie Edo OS No 281 of 2007, 25.07.07 (unreported)

Karen Mek v Mann, UPNG & The State OS (JR) No 392 of 2009, 17.01.11

Kely Kerua v Council Appeal Committee of the University of Papua New Guinea (2004) N2534

Kila Tutura v Joseph Ng (2005) N2924

Kramer Consultants Pty Ltd v The State [1985] PNGLR 200

Peter Kama v Council Appeals Committee of the University of Papua New Guinea (2010) N3829

PNG Aviation Services Pty Ltd v Geob Karri (2009) SC1002

PNG Ports Corporation Limited v Canopus No 71 Ltd (2010) N4288

PNG Waterboard v Gabriel M Kama (2005) SC821

Rex Paki v MVIL (2010) SC1015

Smith v Buller (1875) LR 19 Eq 473

Tolom Abai v The State (1995) N1402

NOTICE OF MOTION

This was an application for costs after judgment.

1. CANNINGS J: The plaintiff, after being granted an application for judicial review, applied by motion for costs on a solicitor-client basis. Two issues arise: (1) whether the awarding of costs on a...