Louis Medaing and 1083 others v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Limited and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Dr Wari Iamo in his capacity as the Director of the Environment (2011) SC1157

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 23 September 2011
• Citation: (2011) SC1157
• Year: 2011
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: SCA 84 OF 2011

Full Title: SCA 84 OF 2011; Louis Medaing and 1083 others v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Limited and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Dr Wari Iamo in his capacity as the Director of the Environment (2011) SC1157

Supreme Court: Sakora, Gabi and Hartshorn JJ

Judgment Delivered: 23 September 2011

Second application for an interim injunction

Facts:

The appellants apply for an interim injunction to restrain the disposal of mine waste or tailings into the sea, pending the determination of their appeal. A previous application was dismissed and this court refused to set aside the dismissal.The first respondent applies to stay or dismiss the appellants’ application as an abuse of process. The second and third respondents oppose the appellants’ application.

Held:

A second application for an interim injunction made without having set aside this court’s refusal to set aside its dismissal of the first application, is an abuse of the process of the court.

Cases cited:

Papua New Guinea cases

Don Pomb Polye v Jimson Sauk Papaki [2000] PNGLR 166; Mainland Holdings Ltd v Paul Robert Stobbs (2003) N2522; Mark Ekepa v William Gaupe (2004) N2694; Timothy Lim Kok Chuan v Simon Goh Say Ben and Tong Cho Chin (2004) N2538; Pius Nui v Senior Sergeant Mas Tanda (2004) N2765; Telikom PNG Ltd v ICCC (2008) SC906; Eddie Tarsie v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd (2010) N3987; Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc. (2009) SC978; Ronald Rimbao v Don Pandan (2011) SC1098

Overseas Cases

D. A. Christie Pty Ltd v. Baker [1996] 2 VR 582; Nominal Defendant v. Manning [2000] NSWCA 80

1. SAKORA J: I have had the advantage of perusing and considering the joint judgment of my brothers, and, having come to the same conclusions, and substantially for the same reasons, I do not have anything to add. I would dismiss the application for interim injunction with costs.

2. GABI and HARTSHORN JJ: The appellants apply for an...