Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd: Stay of Appeal Pending Payment of Costs
The Independent State of Papua New Guinea appealed the High Court's decision in favor of PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd (PNGSDP) in Suit No 795 of 2014 and Originating Summons No 234 of 2015. PNGSDP applied for a stay of Civil Appeal No 78 of 2019 (CA 78) until the State paid the costs awarded by the High Court, fixed at over $2 million. The Court of Appeal, consisting of a single judge, Woo Bih Li J, dismissed PNGSDP's application, finding no special or exceptional circumstances to justify the stay. The court heard the application on 4 October 2019 and issued its decision on 19 November 2019.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed PNGSDP's application to stay CA 78 until the Independent State of Papua New Guinea paid costs awarded by the High Court.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd | Respondent, Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed with costs | Won | |
| Independent State of Papua New Guinea | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed with costs | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The State appealed the High Court's decision dismissing its claims against PNGSDP.
- PNGSDP applied for a stay of the appeal until the State paid costs awarded by the High Court, fixed at over $2 million.
- The State had not fully paid costs ordered against it in interlocutory applications.
- PNGSDP argued the State was able but unwilling to pay the outstanding sum.
- PNGSDP claimed it would face difficulties enforcing the costs orders against the State in Papua New Guinea.
- The State argued it faced difficulties in paying due to foreign exchange controls.
- PNGSDP had not applied for security for costs of the action.
5. Formal Citations
- Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd, Civil Appeal No 78 of 2019 (Summons No 116 of 2019), [2019] SGCA 72
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 795 of 2014 filed | |
| Originating Summons No 234 of 2015 filed | |
| Trial for the consolidated proceedings took place | |
| High Court issued judgment dismissing the State’s claims | |
| Independent State of Papua New Guinea filed Civil Appeal No 78 of 2019 | |
| State’s solicitors certified that they had furnished the standard undertaking as security for PNGSDP’s costs of the appeal | |
| Judge issued decision on costs, ordering the State to pay PNGSDP costs fixed at $2,320,000 plus reasonable disbursements | |
| PNGSDP’s solicitors demanded payment of $2,522,356.07 by 22 August 2019 | |
| State’s solicitors requested deferred payment until disposal of CA 78 | |
| PNGSDP’s solicitors rejected the request for deferred payment | |
| PNGSDP filed Summons No 116 of 2019 for a stay of proceedings | |
| The State’s case in the appeal was filed | |
| Court of Appeal heard SUM 116 and dismissed the application | |
| PNGSDP’s case in the appeal was due | |
| Woo Bih Li J issued grounds of decision | |
| CA 78 is fixed for hearing before the Court of Appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for a stay of appeal, finding no special or exceptional circumstances to justify it.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-payment of costs awarded below
- Abuse of process
- Difficulties in enforcement of costs orders
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353
- [2017] 4 SLR 789
- [2018] SGHCR 3
8. Remedies Sought
- Stay of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353 | Singapore | Cited as the key authority on staying an appeal pending payment of costs awarded below, stating that the jurisdiction should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. |
| Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Aster Lim) v TS Ong Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 789 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stay may be granted where a party is able but unwilling to pay outstanding costs, demonstrating an abuse of process. |
| FT Plumbing Construction Pte Ltd v Authentic Builder Pte Ltd and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHCR 3 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stay may be granted where a party is able but unwilling to pay outstanding costs, demonstrating an abuse of process, within the context of the SOPA regime. |
| Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] All ER(D) 258 | England | Cited for the principle that an appeal may be stayed if the respondent would likely face difficulties in enforcing the judgment and the appellant's non-payment is not due to financial difficulty. |
| Bell Electric Ltd v Aweco Appliance Systems GmbH & Co KG | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 All ER 344 | England | Cited for the principle that a stay may be granted even if enforcement is possible, if the appellant deliberately breaches the order to pay, knowing the respondent faces practical difficulties in enforcement. |
| Goldtrail Travel Ltd (in liquidation) v Onur Air Tasimacilik AS | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2018] 1 All ER 721 | England | Cited for approving the principles in Hammond Suddard, including considering enforcement difficulties, but cautioning against imposing conditions that stifle the appeal. |
| Suntech Power Investment Pte Ltd v Power Solar System Co Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 52 | Singapore | Cited in the context of an application to strike out a pending appeal where the appellant was in continuing breach of a court order. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that raw sources of foreign law may be adduced as evidence, but expert opinions are preferred. |
| Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 68 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed in the current case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 36(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 57 r 3 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 92 r 4 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 23 r 1(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Papua New Guinea Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1976 (Cap 50) s 5 | Papua New Guinea |
| Papua New Guinea Claims By and Against the State Act 1996 (No 52 of 1996) s 13(2) | Papua New Guinea |
| Papua New Guinea Claims By and Against the State Act 1996 (No 52 of 1996) s 14(3) | Papua New Guinea |
| Papua New Guinea Claims By and Against the State Act 1996 (No 52 of 1996) s 14(4) | Papua New Guinea |
| Papua New Guinea Claims By and Against the State Act 1996 (No 52 of 1996) s 14(5) | Papua New Guinea |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Stay of appeal
- Costs order
- Enforcement of judgment
- Abuse of process
- Foreign exchange controls
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Security for costs
15.2 Keywords
- Stay of appeal
- Costs
- Civil procedure
- Singapore
- Papua New Guinea
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Costs | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Costs
- Stay of Proceedings