TST Holdings Pty Ltd and Tin Siew Tan v Tom Pelis and Pelton Investments Pty Limited (1997) SC534

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: (1997) SC534
• Year: 1997
• Docket Number: SCR No 35 of 1996: Review Pursuant to s155(2)(b) and s155(4) of the Constitution
• Date: 27 November 1997

Full Title: SCR No 35 of 1996: Review Pursuant to s155(2)(b) and s155(4) of the Constitution; TST Holdings Pty Ltd and Tin Siew Tan v Tom Pelis and Pelton Investments Pty Limited (1997) SC534

Supreme Court: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J

Judgment Delivered: 27 November 1997

1 Constitutional Review—s155(4)—Application to review decision of Supreme Court—No jurisdictional authority

2 Constitutional Review—s155(2)(b)—Application to review National Court decision—Supreme Appeal struck out for want of prosecution

3 Right to invoke discretionary jurisdiction affirmed—Leave may be granted on convincing reasons and satisfactory explanations being given for non–compliance with statutory requirements and demonstration of an arguable case on the merits

4 SC Review No 4 of 1990; Application by Wili Kili Goiya [1991] PNGLR 170, Avia Aihi v The State (No 1) [1981] PNGLR 81 and Isidore Kaseng v Rabbie Namaliu and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (No 2) (1995) OS No 1 of 1995 (Unnumbered decision dated 31 October 1995) referred to

___________________________

By the Court:

This is an application, purportedly made pursuant to Constitution s155 (2) and (4), seeking to review an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, made on 12 July, 1996 and the earlier related National Court decision made in March 1995.

The National Court decision of March 1995 was appealed against by the applicants TST Holdings Pty Limited and Tim Siew Tan. That appeal was dismissed for want of Prosecution, by the Supreme Court on 12 July 1996.

This application, firstly purportedly pursuant to Constitution s155(4), seeks a review of the Supreme Court decision on the following grounds:

1. The Supreme Court decision was made in want or excess of jurisdiction, there was an error on the face of the record and or the decision was unreasonable under the Wednesbury principles because:

1. The applicant for the dismissal did not disclose any proper grounds upon which the jurisdiction of the Court to exercise its discretion to strike out for want of prosecution was enlivened.

2. The discretion to strike out the applicant's appeal was not exercised judicially in accordance...