Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

An application by Rimbunan Hijau Timber Processing Ltd, In re [2026] PGNC 48; N11722 (3 March 2026)

N11722

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS (APP) NO. 95 OF 2025 (IECMS)

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
RIMBUNAN HIJAU TIMBER PROCESSING LTD

BETWEEN:
RIMBUNAN HIJAU TIMBER PROCESSING LTD
Plaintiff / Applicant

WAIGANI: CAREY J
6,7 AND 8 AUGUST 2025; 5 FEBRUARY, 3 MARCH 2026

COURT ORDERS — Whether motion to be granted or refused — Extension of Time to Appeal from District Court – Interest of Justice

The Plaintiff/Applicant was out of time and sought dispensation of the conditions precedent to the right of appeal from the District Court to the National Court.

Held:

1. The principles governing an extension of time or dispensation of conditions precedent under District Courts Act include the length and explanation for delay, prejudice to each party, arguability of the appeal, and the overarching interests of justice (In the Matter of an Application by Linah Edward [2005] N2804).
2. The time for compliance with the conditions precedent to the right of appeal prescribed under Sections 220(2), 221(2) and 222(1) of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) in respect of the decision and orders of the Daru District Court made on 11^th November 2024 in DC No. 12 of 2023 is hereby extended for fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.
   
3. The Applicant is at liberty to file its appeal within that period.
   
4. The costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.
   
5. Time for entry of these orders be abridged to the time of settlement by the Registrar which shall take place forthwith.
   

Cases cited
In the Matter of an Application by Linah Edward [2005] N2804

PNG Power Ltd v Gura [2014] PGSC 48; SC1402

Counsel
Mr. R. Mannrai, for the plaintiff / applicant

JUDGMENT

1. CAREY J: This is the decision in relation to the application by Rimbunan Hijau Timber Processing Ltd (the Plaintiff/Applicant) seeking an extension of time and a dispensation of the conditions precedent to appeal the decision of the Daru District Court delivered on 11^th November 2024.
   
2. The application is brought pursuant to Section 231 of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) and Rule 12(1) of the Appeal Rules 2005.
   
3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Frank Pyaso, sworn on 22^nd April 2025 and filed on 12^th May 2025 referred to as document 1, who had conduct of the District Court proceedings on behalf of the Applicant.
   

BACKGROUND

4. The Applicant filed its Originating Summons on 12^nd May 2025 seeking the following orders–
   
   1. “An order that the time limited for compliance with the conditions precedent to the right of Appeal as prescribed under Sections 220(2), 221(2) and 222(1) of the District Courts Act (Chapter No. 40) to appeal the Court orders and decision of the Daru District Court made on 11 November 2024 in District Court Proceedings DC No. 12 of 2023: Waidi Kadame v. Rimbunan Hijau Timber Processing Limited be extended for further fourteen (14) days pursuant to Order 18 Rule 12 (1) of the National Court Rules.
      
   2. Costs of these proceedings be costs in the Appeal.”
      
5. The Applicant was the defendant in District Court Proceedings No. 12 of 2023 at Daru.
   
6. The proceedings concerned a claim by a former employee for alleged underpayment of long service leave entitlements.
   
7. Following a contested hearing process, the matter proceeded to trial on 30^th October 2024.
   
8. The District Court subsequently made orders dated 11^th November 2024 in favour of the complainant.
   
9. There were no written judgment or reasons which accompanied those orders.
   
10. Based on document 1, the Applicant was not notified of the decision date and did not receive a copy of the order until 28^th February 2025, when it was emailed by counsel for the Complainant directly to the Applicant’s staff.
    

ISSUE

11. Whether or not the Court should exercise its discretion to dispense with the conditions
    precedent to the right of appeal or to extend the time for compliance with the condition precedent.
    

DETERMINATION

12. Section 231 of the District Courts Act confers a broad discretion on the National Court to dispense with compliance with a condition precedent to the right of appeal, or to extend the time for compliance, where it is satisfied that the appellant has done what is reasonably practicable.
    
13. The guiding considerations in the exercise of that discretion have been discussed In the Matter of an Application by Linah Edward [2005] N2804 in which those considerations include the extent of delay, the reasons for the delay, prejudice to the parties, whether the applicant has an arguable appeal, and the interests of justice.
    
14. The Applicant bears the onus of persuading this Court that the discretion to extend time should be exercised in its favour.
    
15. Although there is a lapse of time between the date of the District Court’s order and the filing of this application, that delay must be assessed in light of the evidence that the Applicant was not informed of the decision until several months after it was made and that no written reasons were provided.
    
16. In those circumstances, the delay is not so inordinate as to warrant refusal of the application.
    
17. The prejudice to the respondent lies in delayed finality and enforcement of the District Court order.
    
18. Such prejudice can be mitigated by limiting the extension granted.
    
19. Conversely, refusal of an extension would deprive the Applicant of any opportunity to pursue appellate review, notwithstanding the apparent absence of reasons and the late communication of the decision.
    
20. At this stage, the Applicant need only demonstrate that the proposed appeal is arguable.
    
21. The asserted absence of written reasons for the District Court’s decision raises a genuine issue suitable for appellate consideration.
    
22. In PNG Power Ltd v Gura [2014] PGSC 48; SC1402 at paragraph 31 it states,

“..The Interests of Justice apply to all parties.”

23. Balancing all relevant factors, I am satisfied that the interests of justice favour granting a limited extension of time to enable the Applicant to exercise its right of appeal.
    

CONCLUSION

24. For the reasons given, the application is granted.
    

ORDERS:

1. The time for compliance with the conditions precedent to the right of appeal prescribed under Sections 220(2), 221(2) and 222(1) of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) in respect of the decision and orders of the Daru District Court made on 11^th November 2024 in DC No. 12 of 2023 is hereby extended for fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.
2. The Applicant is at liberty to file its appeal within that period.
   
3. The costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.
   
4. Time for entry of these Orders be abridged to the time of settlement by the Registrar which shall take place forthwith.
   

Ordered accordingly.
Lawyers for the plaintiff / applicant: Mannrai Lawyers