The Supreme Court is the final court. When it gets something wrong there is no one above it to appeal to. The slip rule is the narrow exception, and this is the case that defined it.
Andrew Trawen, Electoral Commission v Steven Pirika Kama; Michael Laimo v Trawen [2010] PGSC 15; SC1063
Supreme Court, Waigani — Sakora, Batari, Lenalia, Davani and Hartshorn JJ, 16 July 2010. SC Rev 55 and 56 of 2008.
What happened
An election petition over the South Bougainville Open seat produced two applications for leave to review under section 155(2)(b) of the Constitution. The Chief Justice, sitting as a single judge of the Supreme Court, dismissed both. The Electoral Commission and Mr Laimo then applied under the slip rule to reopen his decision.
While hearing those applications the Chief Justice decided that four preliminary questions about the slip rule itself should be settled by a full bench first. A five-judge Court was constituted to answer them.
What was argued
The questions were what a slip rule application is for; whether it is made under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction or under section 155(2)(b) or 155(4) of the Constitution; whether it must be heard by the same judge or judges; and whether leave is required.
What the Court decided
1. A slip rule application is to correct a glaring error or mistake in a judgment or order of the Court. The mistake will be clerical, an accidental omission, or a misapprehension of fact or law. Re Nomination of Governor-General; Application by Sir Pato Kakaraya (No 2) (2004) SC752 applied.
2. It cannot be made under section 155(2)(b), which concerns review of judicial acts of the National Court. Nor does section 155(4) provide a route for the Supreme Court to reopen one of its own decisions.
3. It must be made before the same Supreme Court, constituted by the same judge or judges who heard and determined the appeal or review.
4. The very nature of the application precludes the necessity for leave.
After reviewing the authorities, including Wallbank and Minifie v The State [1994] PNGLR 78 and the House of Lords in Pinochet (No 2), the Court settled the principles that govern all slip rule applications. Later benches summarise them as: there is a substantial public interest in the finality of litigation; on the other hand, any injustice should be corrected; the Court must have proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law; and the error must be clear and manifest on a critical issue, not an invitation to reargue the case.
Did it make new law?
The five-judge bench did not affirm any National Court decision; the slip rule in the Supreme Court is a matter for the Supreme Court alone. It consolidated earlier Supreme Court authority, chiefly Kakaraya (No 2), and settled two points that had been uncertain: the constitutional source of the power (inherent, not section 155) and the same-bench rule. Since the 2012 Rules, Order 11 rules 32 to 34 give the application a procedure, including a requirement for leave from the Court that made the decision, which later cases apply alongside Trawen.
Why it matters
It is not a second appeal. A party who simply disagrees with the reasoning, or wants to run a new argument, will fail. The applicant must point to a specific misapprehension that the Court itself would recognise as a slip.
It goes back to the same judges. The application cannot be steered to a different bench, and a judge who has left office cannot be replaced for the purpose.
Because the slip rule is so narrow, unmeritorious applications waste judicial time. The Court has said that it may award costs on a solicitor and client or full indemnity basis against parties who bring them.
What it does not decide
Trawen concerns the Supreme Court reopening its own decision. The National Court’s power to correct its orders under the National Court Rules is separate. The case also says nothing about review of a National Court decision after a failed appeal, which is dealt with in Popuna v Owa, where the slip rule is named as the only remaining door.
Recent cases applying it
- Poka v The State [2025] PGSC 144; SC2833 — Berrigan J: the principles are “well settled” in Trawen; leave to bring a slip rule application against the dismissal of a criminal review was refused.
- Global Customs & Forwarding Ltd v Samson [2023] PGSC 174; SC2523 — Hartshorn J set out the Trawen principles in full on an application for leave to file a slip rule application.
- Rimbunan Hijau (PNG) Ltd v Enei [2019] PGSC 73; SC1859 — the full Court applied Trawen, found none of the claimed slips made out, and warned of indemnity costs for meritless applications.
- National Superannuation Fund Ltd v Yawenaik Holdings Ltd [2019] PGSC 10; SC1759 — Trawen cited on a slip rule application.
Sources
- Trawen v Kama [2010] PGSC 15; SC1063 (Sakora, Batari, Lenalia, Davani and Hartshorn JJ, 16 July 2010)
- Constitution — s 155(2)(b), (4)
- Supreme Court Rules 2012 — Order 11 rules 32 to 34
- Wallbank and Minifie v The State [1994] PGSC 21; [1994] PNGLR 78
- Poka v The State [2025] PGSC 144; SC2833; Global Customs & Forwarding Ltd v Samson [2023] PGSC 174; SC2523; Rimbunan Hijau (PNG) Ltd v Enei [2019] PGSC 73; SC1859; National Superannuation Fund Ltd v Yawenaik Holdings Ltd [2019] PGSC 10; SC1759
Re Nomination of Governor-General; Application by Sir Pato Kakaraya (No 2) (2004) SC752 is cited as it appears in the judgment; the PacLII copy is indexed under a different title and was not separately verified 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.