Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited v Martha Kuma (2000) SC650

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [2000] PNGLR 1
• Date: 09 August 2000
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2000

Full Title: Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited v Martha Kuma (2000) SC650

Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Jalina J, Sawong J

Judgment Delivered: 9 August 2000

1 Application for extension of time under s54(6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Ch295)—admissibility of evidence given by lawyer to show “sufficient cause".

2 Power of the Supreme Court to grant extension on appeal s16(c) Supreme Court Act (Ch37)—principles considered.

3 MVIT v Viel Kampu (1998) SC587, Graeme Rundle v MVIT [1987] PNGLR 44; Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20, Leo Duque v Avia Andrew Paru [1997] PNGLR 378; ABCO Transport Pty Ltd v Timothy Sakaip (1997) N1577, Peter Dickson Donigi v Base Resources Ltd [1992] PNGLR 110; New Zealand Insurance Company v Chief Collector of Taxes [1988] PNGLR 522 and Independent State of Papua New Guinea v Colbert [1988] PNGLR 138 referred to

4 Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Ch295), s54(6), Supreme Court Act (Ch37), s16(c)

___________________________

By the Court: On an application made by the respondent, the National Court granted an extension of time within which to give notice of claim to the appellant pursuant to s4(6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Ch295). The appellant filed an application for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal against this decision.

Application for Leave to Appeal

Counsel for the respondent did not contest the application for leave to appeal on the basis that he conceded that the trial judge erred in granting the extension on the wrong findings of fact. This will become apparent when we consider the notice of appeal. We would grant leave to appeal.

Notice of Appeal

We now proceed to deal with the merits of the appeal. The circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as follows. The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8 August 1997. The respondent's husband gave instructions to Dowa Lawyers to pursue a claim for damages on 15 August 1997. Apparently, the lawyer advised the respondent's husband to obtain Road Accident Report and Medical Report as they were prerequisites to a claim against the Appellant. The lawyers acting on this wrong and mistaken view of the law, did not give notice of claim to the appellant immediately but waited for the respondent to provide the reports. When the respondent did not provide the reports for some months, the lawyers then gave notice of claim to the appellant in a letter dated 25 February 1998. This letter was received in the appellant's office on 2 March 1998. The notice was given well outside the 6 months period and therefore did not constitute notice. The appellant was therefore not obliged to act on the notice.

The respondent's lawyers then wrote to the...