Do I Have to Plead Everything I Claim?

A large share of the appeals in MVIL cases are about pleadings. The rules are those of the National Court generally, but the Act and the Wrongs Act add requirements of their own, and the insurer’s lawyers know them.

Facts, not law

Order 8 rule 8 of the National Court Rules requires a pleading to state the material facts relied on, not the law. In Kei v MVIT [1992] PGLawRp 588; [1992] PNGLR 195 the court held that “an assertion by stating s 54 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act is insufficient pleading where no facts are alleged for the purpose of the section”. The facts that must be alleged are: the date and place of the accident; the vehicle, by registration number and description; that it was insured under the Act (or, for pre-2021 accidents, that it was uninsured or unidentified on a public street); who was driving; the particulars of negligence; the injuries; and the loss. The site’s National Court series explains what a pleading must contain.

Particulars of injury and loss

Order 8 rule 33 requires a claim for personal injury to give particulars of the injuries, the disabilities, and each head of damage claimed, and rules 34 and 35 require particulars of out-of-pocket expenses. The consequences of omission are real. In MVIL v Kiangua [2015] PGSC 70; SC1476 K1,500 for funeral expenses was struck out because it “was never pleaded”. In Pelen v MVIL [2026] PGNC 249; N11980 the court cited rules 34 and 35 in refusing special damages. In Saka v MVIL [2025] PGNC 486; N11642 the plaintiffs had failed to give their dates of birth as rule 33(1) requires, which matters because age drives the assessment of future loss.

Unpleaded evidence admitted without objection

The Supreme Court has twice refused to let MVIL rely on a pleading defect it ignored at trial. In MVIT v Pupune [1993] PGLawRp 537; [1993] PNGLR 370: “where evidence is admitted of economic loss which was not pleaded, and the evidence was not objected to, the defendant cannot, on appeal, hark back to the pleadings and submit that economic loss was not pleaded”. In MVIT v Tabanto [1995] PGSC 16; [1995] PNGLR 214: a party “who has not objected to evidence in relation to matters which are not pleaded and who proceeded to litigate the matter on its merits, cannot raise objection to the admissibility of such evidence on appeal”. MVIT v Etape [1994] PGSC 12; [1994] PNGLR 596 is to the same effect. The rule cuts both ways: a claimant cannot rely on it if MVIL’s counsel objects at the hearing, so the pleading should be right in the first place.

Special pleading requirements in MVIL cases

• The excess over the cap. A claimant seeking damages above K150,000 must “plead specifically the excess allowed by s 54(5)” and join the owner or driver: Pickthall v MVIT [1991] PGNC 73; [1991] PNGLR 113.
• Dependants. Section 32 of the Wrongs Act requires the plaintiff in a death claim to deliver with the statement of claim “full particulars of the person for whom and on whose behalf the action is brought”. A dependant not named cannot claim: Collins v MVIT [1990] PGLawRp 323; [1990] PNGLR 580. The minimum for children is their names, ages and sex, and the representative capacity must be endorsed on the writ: Mongogl v MVIT [1985] PGLawRp 490; [1985] PNGLR 300. The deceased’s employment and earnings must also be pleaded: Waima v MVIT [1992] PGLawRp 598; [1992] PNGLR 254.
• Standing. A brother suing for a deceased’s death without pleading that he is the personal representative or a dependant has no standing: Ambo v MVIT [1999] PGNC 124; N2162.
• Disabled plaintiffs. Order 5 rules 21 and 22 on proceedings by a person under a disability are mandatory, though substantial compliance sufficed in Kewa v MVIL [2011] PGNC 162; N4440.
• Defences. MVIL must plead contributory negligence (Alo v MVIT) and limitation. A defence consisting of a general denial of each allegation is not “pleading the general issue” and will not be struck out on that ground: MVIT v Waige [1995] PGLawRp 684; [1995] PNGLR 202.

Amendment

Order 8 rule 50 allows amendment at any stage, but leave should be sought as soon as the need arises and will be refused if the other side is prejudiced. In George v MVIT [1993] PGLawRp 556; [1993] PNGLR 477 amendment after the close of evidence was allowed only because the issue had been fully aired at the hearing. In Gene v MVIT [1994] PGLawRp 676; [1995] PNGLR 344 a plaintiff who had not filed a reply disputing a deed of release was allowed to contest it because he had made the issue plain well before trial. See how do I amend a pleading.

After default judgment

Where MVIL fails to defend and judgment is entered on liability, the statement of claim becomes the sole measure of what can be assessed. Kiangua held that it “serves as proxy for default judgment in assessing damages”. The plaintiff still has to prove each pleaded head, as Pelen and MVIL v Kol [2007] PGSC 38; SC902 insist; but nothing outside the pleading can be recovered at all.