Sialis Tedor v PNG Ports Corporation (2011) SC1137

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2011) SC1137
• Date: 16 November 2011
• Docket Number: SCA N0. 74 0F 2008
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2011

Full Title: SCA N0. 74 0F 2008; Sialis Tedor v PNG Ports Corporation (2011) SC1137

Supreme Court: Lenalia, Gabi & Kariko JJ

Judgment Delivered: 16 November 2011

APPEAL—appeal against dismissal of proceedings—application to set aside default judgement—principles.

APPEAL—appeal against dismissal of proceedings—whether proceedings a nullity—non compliance with the Public Finance (Management) Act.

APPEAL—appeal against dismissal of proceedings—O12 r40 National Court Rules—whether proceedings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

After the plaintiff obtained default judgement following an inter-partes hearing, the defendant applied to have the judgement set aside or in the alternative dismiss the entire proceedings as irregular for not having complied with several statutory provisions.

The National Court dismissed the proceedings for being a nullity and for not disclosing a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed against that decision.

Cases cited:

Smith v. Ruma Constructions Ltd (2002) SC695

John Bokin v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2001) N2111

Paul Marinda v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1991) N1026

Albert Areng v Gregory Babia (2005) N2928

Leo Hannet and Elizabeth Hannet v ANZ Banking Group (PNG) Ltd (1996) SC505

16 November, 2011

1. BY THE COURT: On 20 April 2007, Sialis Tedor & Associates a law firm based in Lae (“Tedor Lawyers”), filed proceedings in the National Court claiming the sum of K166,923.34 being monies owed by the PNG Ports Corporation (“the Corporation”) for legal services rendered to it pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties. The law firm also claimed interest and costs.

2. The Corporation failed to file its defence within the prescribed time resulting in Tedor Lawyers filing an application for default judgement.

3. The court allowed the Corporation to file an application to file its defence out of time but no such application was filed.

4. On 24 August 2007 the application for default judgment was heard inter-partes after the Corporation failed to obtain further adjournment to file the application to extend time to file its defence.

5. The National Court granted the orders sought by Tedor...