A judge announced a K3.98 million verdict, promised written reasons, and never delivered them. The Supreme Court's response is the modern authority on what reasons a judgment must contain.
Coconut Products Ltd v Markham Farming Co Ltd [2018] PGSC 60; SC1717
Supreme Court, Waigani — Gavara-Nanu, Makail and Dingake JJ, 10 October 2018. SCA 94 of 2017.
What happened
Coconut Products occupied land under a lease from a former owner and had been negotiating to renew or buy. Markham Farming bought the property and became registered proprietor. Coconut Products then brought multiple proceedings to set aside Markham’s title, all of which failed. Markham sued for civil malicious prosecution. On 26 May 2017 the trial judge upheld the claim and awarded K3,981,000 for loss of business and other losses.
In delivering the decision the judge gave only a brief summary and the orders, saying detailed reasons would be published. None ever were. Coconut Products appealed.
What was argued
The appellant said it could not properly frame or argue its appeal without reasons, that no such tort as civil malicious prosecution existed in Papua New Guinea, and that in any event liability and quantum were unsupported. Markham said the cause of action was sound and the judge’s summary was enough to show why it had won.
What the Court decided
Reasons. A trial judge has a duty to provide reasons for decision. If no reasons are given, it leaves open the inference that there are no good reasons. Amet v Yama (2010) SC1064, Ombudsman Commission v Yama (2004) SC747, Niggints v Tokam [1993] PNGLR 66 and Asiki v Zurenuoc (2005) SC797 reaffirmed. Reasons must be sufficient to assist a party wishing to appeal to prepare grounds, and the respondent to defend them, so that the issues can be identified from the record.
The cause of action. The tort of civil malicious prosecution, a form of the tort of abuse of process, is part of the underlying law of Papua New Guinea under Schedules 2.2 and 2.3 of the Constitution. The trial judge made no error in holding that Markham was entitled to sue on it.
Result. The evidence fell short of establishing liability. The appeal was allowed in part: the judgment on liability and the award of K3,981,000 were quashed, the National Court’s orders set aside, and each party ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal and the trial.
Did it make new law?
The Court reaffirmed earlier Supreme Court authority on reasons and affirmed the National Court’s recognition of the cause of action, while reversing the outcome. Its lasting contribution is the statement of what reasons are for: not a formality but the material from which an appeal is built. Later benches have applied that standard to brief oral judgments in both civil and criminal cases.
Why it matters
Ex tempore decisions must still explain themselves. A summary of the result, or acceptance of one side’s submissions without analysis, will not do, particularly on quantum.
A promise of later reasons is not reasons. Where the promise is unfulfilled the appellate court will proceed on the record as it stands.
Repeated failed litigation has a price. A party who pursues unfounded proceedings against another may be sued for malicious prosecution, though the elements, including malice and want of reasonable cause, must be strictly proved.
What it does not decide
Coconut Products does not hold that absence of reasons automatically voids a decision; the inference that no good reasons exist is a matter of weight, and an appellate court will still examine the record to see whether the result can be supported. Nor does it prescribe a form or length for reasons: a short judgment that identifies the issues, the findings and the basis for them will suffice. Nor does it set out the elements of civil malicious prosecution in detail, since the appeal was decided on the insufficiency of evidence.
Recent cases applying it
- Woodbank Pacific Ltd v Paropet [2021] PGSC 106; SC2177 — reasons must be sufficient to let a party prepare grounds of appeal and the respondent defend them; Coconut Products applied with Asiki and Amet v Yama.
- Rage v Rageau [2020] PGSC 62; SC1971 — a brief oral judgment on damages that simply accepted the plaintiff’s submissions gave insufficient reasons; Coconut Products stressed.
- Haro v The State [2019] PGSC 96; SC1841 — the principles applied to a criminal conviction delivered by brief oral judgment without full reasons.
Sources
- Coconut Products Ltd v Markham Farming Co Ltd [2018] PGSC 60; SC1717 (Gavara-Nanu, Makail and Dingake JJ, 10 October 2018)
- Constitution — ss 59, 60, Sch 2.2, 2.3
- Amet v Yama [2010] PGSC 46; SC1064; Asiki v Zurenuoc [2005] PGSC 27; SC797
- Woodbank Pacific Ltd v Paropet [2021] PGSC 106; SC2177; Rage v Rageau [2020] PGSC 62; SC1971; Haro v The State [2019] PGSC 96; SC1841
Ombudsman Commission v Yama (2004) SC747 and Niggints v Tokam [1993] PNGLR 66 are cited as they appear in the judgment and were not separately opened for this brief.
A case brief is a summary written by a person, not a substitute for the judgment. Read the judgment itself at the link given, check whether it has since been followed, distinguished or overruled, and get advice before relying on it. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.