PNG Forest Products Pty Ltd and Inchcape Berhad v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Jack Genia, The Minister for Forests [1992] PNGLR 85

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1992] PNGLR 85
• Year: 1992
• Date: 04 March 1992

Full Title: PNG Forest Products Pty Ltd and Inchcape Berhad v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Jack Genia, The Minister for Forests [1992] PNGLR 85

National Court: Sheehan J

Judgment Delivered: 4 March 1992

1 Practice and procedure—National Court—motion to strike out claim—grounds—no reasonable cause of action disclosed—allegation of abuse of court process—National Court Rules O12 r40

2 Practice and procedure—National Court—motion to strike out claim—privity of contract—illegality of clause pleaded—whether purported claim relies on an unlawful letter on a ministerial discretion

3 Practice and procedure—National Court—plaintiff's motion for continuance of restraining order

___________________________

Sheehan J: On 19 December 1991 the PNG Forest Products Pty Ltd, the first plaintiff, and Inchcape Berhad, the second plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the State as first defendant, and the Minister of Forests, the Honourable Mr Jack Genia as second defendant. They claim specific performance and damages under a contract between the parties regarding certain timber and logging rights in the Morobe Province.

The Court now has motions before it from both plaintiffs and defendants.

The plaintiffs' motion is for the continuance of an ex parte order made on 20th December 1991 restraining the defendants from further disposition of the timber and logging rights the subject of their claim.

The defendant motions seek that the plaintiffs statement of claim be struck out as failing to disclose any cause of action. In the alternative the defendant seek orders dismissing the first plaintiff from the proceedings on grounds that no privity of contract exists between that plaintiff and any of the defendants since it is not party to any relevant agreement or contract between them.

Though it would seem to have been more appropriate to have heard the defendants motion first, by agreement of the parties it was the plaintiff who first presented its case.

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the facts and law pleaded and sworn to, readily supported an arguable case. Once that proposition was accepted, then the balance of convenience plainly lay with...