Likui Trading Limited v Joseph Selna (2011) N4530

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 18 November 2011
• Citation: (2011) N4530
• Docket Number: WS 1458 of 2008
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2011

Full Title: WS 1458 of 2008; Likui Trading Limited v Joseph Selna (2011) N4530

National Court: Kawi J

Judgment Delivered: 18 November 2011

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES - principles of assessing damages- plaintiff bears the burden to prove his losses with particularity and certainty- Plaintiff failed to prove business losses—Plaintiff cannot get what he has not proven—claim for loss of business and profits must be strictly proven

Held:

(1) The plaintiff is under an obligation to prove his losses with particularity. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence at all to prove his losses.

(2) Claims such as claims for loss of business opportunity or claims for loss of business profits must be strictly proven with the production of appropriate business records, accounting records, bank statements, and even tax or company returns.

CASES CITED IN JUDGEMENT

UPNG v Jerry Duwaino (2011) SC1119; Cheong Supermarket Pty Ltd v Pery Muro [1987] PNGLR 24

1. KAWI J: This was a trial for assessment of damages. Liability was determined with the entry of default judgment against the defendant on the 19th October 2011.

2. This trial concerned a claim for monetary compensation arising from what appears to be breach of rental agreement. The plaintiff, Likui Trading Limited entered into an oral agreement with the defendant one Joseph Selna to rent his building located at section 2 Lot 22, Town of Buka Kokopau, Buka passage. It was an oral term of the agreement that the plaintiff would trade in general merchandising and groceries. He would rent the defendant’s building by paying a rental amount of K600.00 per month. He physically moved in and occupied the property about January 2006 and commenced trading. By February 2006 the plaintiff had gone into full swing trading. Prior to the plaintiff moving in and commenced trading, he carried out repairs and general maintence to the building. This was about September to December 2005. This was in anticipation of him eventually moving into that building to commence trading.

3. About 11th December, 2006 the defendant had locked out the plaintiff from operating his business in his building. The Plaintiff sued as a result claiming damages for loss of...