Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1991
[1991] PNGLR 199
N986
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST
V
ARILD
Mount Hagen
Woods J
22 May 1991
28 June 1991
INFERIOR COURTS - District Courts - Costs - Civil claims - Claims to be supported by evidence - District Courts Act (Ch No 40), Schedules 3, 4, 5.
COSTS - Scale of costs - District Courts - Civil claims - Claims to be supported by evidence - District Courts Act (Ch No 40), Schedules 3, 4, 5.
Held
Costs in civil cases before the District Court must be just an reasonable and must not exceed the amounts set forth in the schedules to the District Courts Act (Ch No 40): where there is no agreement on costs, then costs will only be allowed according to the Schedules and the amounts claimed must be clearly supported by appropriate evidence.
Cases Cited
McEnroe v Mou [1981] PNGLR 222.
Appeal
This was an appeal from the decision of a District Court on a claim for damages for personal injuries.
Counsel
A Kandakasi, for the appellant.
P Kopunye, for the respondent.
Cur adv vult
1 July 1991
WOODS J: This is an appeal against the order of the District Court made on 11 February 1991 whereby the Court ordered judgment for the complainant in the sum of K4,729.60.
This matter was a personal injuries claim following a motor vehicle accident at Jimi on 21 February 1989. The claimant was a passenger in a motor vehicle which went off the road in foggy conditions and rolled over. Of a number of people in and on the back of the vehicle apparently the claimant was the only person injured.
[His Honour then considered the appeal against liability in a manner not calling for support concluding:]
I therefore find no errors in the magistrate’s findings on liability and damages.
ON COSTS
The appellant is also appealing against the costs as taxed. He is appealing against the costs allowed as per the District Court Act (Ch No 40) under item 5 of Schedule 4, item 2 of Schedule 5 and items 1 and 3 of Schedule 3. The appellant does not dispute the costs under 1, 2 and 6 of Schedule 4.
Costs in civil cases before the District Court must be just and reasonable and must not exceed the amounts set forth in the schedule: see McEnroe v Mou [1981] PNGLR 222 at 227.
The costs in Schedule 4, item 5 is for five adjournments at K21 per adjournment. This item allows for costs for any application for an adjournment where the court at the time especially allows the adjournment. However, such costs must be sought for and allowed at the time and such would of course depend on which party sought the adjournment and the reasons for the adjournment. The court file shows that no specific orders for costs were sought at the time of the adjournments and no orders for costs were made. Further it appears that the adjournments were for various reasons. For example, on 20 July 1990, the plaintiff sought the adjournment and that return date was only three weeks from the date of the issue of the complaint which is a quite unreasonable time by which to have a mention of this type of case, so how could costs be even considered for the adjournment. No reason is given at the mention on 30 August 1990. On 17 October 1990, initially no party appeared although it would seem from the note that parties had been in touch with the court as to how many witnesses would be called, then later on that morning the adjournment seems to be by consent. I note the date for the adjournments in the “Taxed Costs” sheet seem to be different from the dates appearing on the court work-sheets. I allow the appeal against the costs, Schedule 4, item 5.
Whilst it is clearly to the advantage of all parties to have the costs of such actions determined as soon as possible, if there is no agreement, then the costs can only be strictly as allowed in the District Courts Act. Further, the amounts must be clearly supported by appropriate evidence, some of course such as the hearing times and filing fees would be well within the knowledge of the court but other items must be clearly supported by appropriate evidence before being allowed.
The effect of my rulings above is that the costs of K714.60 must be reduced by the amounts struck out or varied as follows:
Less K102 from item 5, Schedule 4.
Less K168 from item 7, Schedule 4.
Less K160 from item 3, Schedule 5.
Less K79 from item 3, Schedule 3.
TOTAL K509
The costs should therefore only be K205.60.
The appeal against liability and damages is allowed as noted with the re-apportionment above and the appeal against the costs is allowed and the costs are reduced to K205.60.
Appeal allowed.
Lawyers for the appellant: Young & Williams.
Lawyers for the respondent: Kopunye Lawyers