Supro v Aopi and Telikom PNG Ltd [1997] PGNC 149; N1643 (17 November 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1643

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS 348 OF 1997
LUKE BENJAMIN SUPRO - Plaintiff
v
GEREA AOPI - First Defendant
TELIKOM PNG LIMITED - Second Defendant

Waigani

Woods J
10 November 1997
17 November 1997

JUDICIAL REVIEW - leave for - claim for review of employment contract - public or private law - termination of employment is a matter of private law - employer is a company under the Companies Act - leave refused.

Cases Cited:

R v Berkshire Health Authority ex p Walsh [1984] EWCA Civ 6; [1984] 3 AER 425

Ragi v The State Services & Statutory Authorities Superannuation Board Unreported [1994] SC459

Sulaiman v PNG Unitech Unreported [1987] N610

R Nonggorr for the applicant

17 November 1997

WOODS J: The Plaintiff is seeking leave for Judicial Review of the decision by the defendant to terminate his employment with Telikom PNG Limited. Up until the 21st ary 1997 1997 the Plaintiffbeen employed in the position of Executive Manager Human Rean Resources Services with the second defendant. He was terminated athe 2ebt February.

As a general rule judicial revieweview is used where a public body is relying for its decision making power statute or subordinate legislation made for statute or subordinate legislation. Judi Judicial w is a remedremedy where the action of a public authority is to be challenged.

In R v Berkshire Health Authority ex parte Walsh [1984] EWCA Civ 6; [1984] 3 AER 425 at 429, 0;the remedy of judicial review is only available where isse issues of ‘public law’ are involved.”

So what is public law as against private law. Private law rights reto isto issues which arise either out of contract or out of tort whereby a private individual is claiming against either a private or public body damages or other remedy for a breach of contra a breach of duty at commonommon law which is owed to him personally. Public law prima facie islthe law which governs the actions of bodies designated by statute or by the prerogative where those actions are concerned generally to protect the interests ofo control the activities of the public at large. Whil Whilst a te individuavidual may well claim private benefits or rights arising out of the general exercise of the public law power or duty this would be where as stated above, the public authority is acunder a statute or subordinordinate legislation.

The plaintiff here is claiming that his termination from employment is a matter of public law. In fact merely a matter oter of a private law nature, the right of an employer to control and deal with its own employees. There is noutory duty here here, there is no statutory protection which makes this a matter of public law. This is purely a matter of the relationship between a master and a servant. Whilst the master is a Coma Company created by Statute, the Telkom PNG Limited Act 1996 over which the Government may have some overriding control as the Company has general comm service obligations and general governmental obligations, ons, it is still only a company registered under the Companies Act Chapter 146.

The above statements of the difference between private and public law were considered by the Supreme Court in the case Ragi v The State Services & Statutory Authorities Superannuation Board Unreported 1994 SC 459.

And see the case 1987 Sulaiman v PNG Uniteck Unreported N 610 where it was clearly stated:

“The right to seek Judicial review has been granted where an injustice has been done and there is no other remedy. For example wherecision byon by a tribunal or public authority is final and the applicant has and will suffer some damage. However in this case pplicpplicant if he has suf some wrong clearly has some other remedy. He has a rs a remedy to sre for damages for wrongful dismissal under his terms and cions of employment.” And furth#8220;The lahe lahe law is well settled. The Court will not graecifpecific performanca contract of employment.&#nt.”

and see the authorities quoted in that case.

I find that this is not a matter of publi for which judicial review is an appropriate remedy. 160; I refhe application fion for leave.

The application is dismissed.