Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
National Court of Papua New Guinea |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
WS No. 1354 OF 2015
ANDREW POHON
Plaintiff
V
FATHER JAN CZUBA
First Defendant
DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY
Second Defendant
Madang: Cannings J
2016: 27 May, 10 August, 11 November
DAMAGES – breach of contract of employment – assessment of debt and damages following trial on liability – failure by employer to terminate contract in accordance with terms – claim for loss of remuneration and damages.
The plaintiff established liability in breach of contract against the second defendant, his former employer, due to its failure to terminate the contract of employment in accordance with its terms. The contract provided that the employer give six months notice in writing of its intention to terminate the contract; in fact, only 25 days notice was given. At this trial on assessment of debt and damages, the plaintiff claimed lost remuneration of K21,843.64 and general damages for anxiety, hardship and suffering of K350,000.00, a total of K371,843.64. The second defendant conceded, in principle, that it was liable for lost remuneration, but argued that nothing should be awarded for general damages.
Held:
(1) For lost remuneration, K11,919.70 was awarded, as it was an implied term of the contract of employment that the plaintiff would be entitled to six months worth of remuneration (K19,407.68) in lieu of notice, if six months was not given, and here only K7,487.98 was paid.
(2) The claim for general damages was, in principle, a proper claim, to be assessed separately from the claim for lost remuneration (which is properly regarded as a claim for debt, as distinct from damages). The amount sought by the plaintiff was, however, extravagant and unprecedented. Comparing the facts of this case with other cases in which similar awards had been made, the appropriate award was K5,000.00.
(3) The total award of debt (K11,919.70) and damages (K5,000.00) was K16,919.70. In addition, interest of K5,278.95 was awarded. The total judgment sum was K22,198.65. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Cases cited
The following cases are cited in the judgment:
Bal Bar v Maima Kora (2008) N3290
Bruno Denfop v Jant Ltd (2015) N5869
Chemica Didiman v Bernard Tiau (2007) N5000
Christopher Kondai v Lon Sike & PIMS (2014) N5721
Divine Word University v George Podas (2015) SC1414
Frederick Mathies v Joel Korina (2009) N3832
George Podas v Divine Word University (2011) N4395
Harding v Teperoi Timbers Pty Ltd [1988] PNGLR 128
Jeffery Balakau v Sir Arnold Amet (2013) N5313
John Murua v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd (2013) N5092
Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd v National Provident Fund Board of Trustees (2006) SC837
Leeway East Enterprise Ltd v Daniel Danaben (2013) N4951
Livingston v Raywards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cases 25
Monica Angogi v Fred Yadiwilo & Chemica Ltd (2014) N5605
Niugini Civil & Petroleum Ltd v West New Britain Development Corporation Ltd (2008) N3292
Porgera Joint Venture v Robin Kami (2010) SC1060
Samuel Roth v Samuel Waironak (2011) N4452
Timothy Con v Jant Ltd (2014) N5721
UPNG v Jerry Duwaino (2009) N3723
Vere Kilao v Bernard Tiau (2007) N5000
ASSESSMENT
This was a trial on assessment of debt and damages for breach of contract.
Counsel:
A Pohon, the Plaintiff, in Person
B W Meten, for the Defendants
11 November 2016
1 LOST REMUNERATION
The University shall give six (6) months notice in writing of its intention to terminate employment.
2 GENERAL DAMAGES
First and foremost I am of the view, expressed in many cases, that there is no universal principle of law that a person who succeeds in establishing liability against his former employer for breach of a contract of employment is entitled to no more damages than the amount of salary that would have been payable to him under the contract. Each case and each contract must be determined on its merits (Vere Kilao v Bernard Tiau (2007) N5000, Bal Bar v Maima Kora (2008) N3290, Frederick Mathies v Joel Korina (2009) N3832, John Murua v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd (2013) N5092).
Secondly, the facts in Podas must be distinguished from the facts in the present case. In Podas, the Supreme Court found error in my decision to award an amount of damages commensurate with the remuneration that would have been paid to the plaintiff for the balance of his contract period. No error was found in the assessment of damages for stress, anxiety and hardship.
Thirdly, I am not satisfied that there is Supreme Court authority that lays down the principle that Mr Meten is heralding. I do not consider that the majority decision of the Supreme Court in Porgera Joint Venture v Robin Kami (2010) SC1060 elevates the principle advanced by the defendants to a universal principle that applies to every case of wrongful dismissal.
Fourthly, the principle, to the extent that it exists, in my view, depends on the unjustified merging of two distinct remedies, debt and damages, to which a plaintiff who succeeds in establishing a cause of action in breach of contract, is entitled. The debt remedy is nothing other than the monetary amount due to the plaintiff in accordance with the contract. It does not include any component of compensation. The essence and purpose of the remedy of damages, by contrast, is to compensate the plaintiff: to put the innocent party in the same position, as far as possible, as he would have been in if the wrongdoer had not committed the wrongful act (Livingston v Raywards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cases 25, Samuel Roth v Samuel Waironak (2011) N4452).
Fifthly, though it is common for courts, upon finding that a plaintiff has established a cause of action in breach of contract, to order that there will a trial on ‘assessment of damages’, the more correct wording of the order will often be that there should be a trial on ‘assessment of debt and damages’. It is important to maintain the distinction between the two remedies, debt and damages (Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd v National Provident Fund Board of Trustees (2006) SC837, Niugini Civil & Petroleum Ltd v West New Britain Development Corporation Ltd (2008) N3292, Jeffery Balakau v Sir Arnold Amet (2013) N5313).
SUMMARY
INTEREST
COSTS
ORDER
(1) The second defendant shall pay to the plaintiff debt and damages of K16,919.70 plus interest of K5,278.95, being a total judgment sum of K22,198.65, within 30 days after the date of judgment.
(2) The parties will bear their own costs.
(3) Time for entry of the order is abridged to the date of settlement by the Registrar, which shall take place forthwith.
Judgment accordingly,
_______________________________________________
Meten Lawyers: Lawyers for the defendants
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2016/317.html