PNG Pipes Pty Ltd v Mujo Sefa, Globe Pty Ltd, Romy Macasaet and ANZ Banking Group (PNG) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J
• Judgment Date: 27 June 1997
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1997
• Citation: [1998] PNGLR 551
• Judgement Number: SC524

Supreme Court: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J

Judgment Delivered: 27 June 1997

SC524

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCA 30 OF 1996

PNG PIPES PTY LTD

V

MUJO SEFA

GLOBE PTY LTD

ROMY MACASAET

ANZ BANKING GROUP (PNG) LTD

Waigani: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J.

13th August 1996, 27th June 1997

Appeal — Costs of application to stay proceedings pending appeal —

S. 19 Supreme Court Act — Power of single judge of the Supreme Court to award cost on application to stay.

J. Bray for the Appellant

D. Steven for the First, Second and Third Respondents

E. Anderson for the Fourth Respondents

27th June 1997

By The Court. Sheehan J. dismissed the proceedings entitled OS 212 of 1996. It is not necessary to set out the details of this proceeding at this stage. The appellant has lodged an appeal against this decision (SCA 30 of 1996) which is still pending.

The appellant filed an application in the National Court dated 27 May 1996 seeking for orders of Sheehan J. striking out proceedings entitled OS 212 of 1996 and order removing ANZ Banking Group to be removed from the proceedings be stayed pending the hearing of the appeal. This application came on for hearing before Sakora J. He dismissed the application and then heard submissions on costs of the application. He subsequently made orders on costs as follows:

1. The Respondent's costs of the application filed 27 May 1996 be awarded against the Appellant's lawyers.

2. That the costs be paid in the manner prescribed by Order 22 Rule 65 on the basis that the Appellant's lawyers, indemnify the Respondents for their costs.

3. That the costs be paid are to be paid on a solicitor/client taxed basis.

The appellant has appealed against this decision by way of notice of motion under the Supreme Court Rules. Two questions arise for consideration in this case. The first, is whether a single judge of the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction to award costs in the circumstances of this case? If the answer to this question is in the positive, did the trial judge err in exercising his discretion in the manner he did?

The Supreme Court is a Constitutional body of a statutory nature. It is established by s 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Its jurisdiction...