National Court of Papua New Guinea

The plaintiff instructed lawyers to act for her in late 997. By a letter date dated 4th June 1997, her lawyers wrote to the Insurance Commissioner seeking an extension from the Commissioner. However by a letter datJul1 July 1997, the Commissioner refused the application. She wen advised by her lawr lawyers to bring some money as legal fees before the lawyers could make an application to the Court for an extension of time. She w advin September 1997 1997 and by mid October 1997 she came came with the required amount of legal fees. The present proceedinge then filed in November 1997.

Where the Insurance Commissioner refuses to grant an t an extension of time, an applicant may tpply to the National Court to get the extension. This issue wasled in Rund>Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20. Tase sets out the principlnciples governing the exercise of discretion to extend time. The plainbears the onus tous toblish#8220;sufficient ient cause”. This expression must be interpreted widely, aly, as it deals with justice of the case bg in mind that each case must be determined on its own fact facts and merit. This would also involvecone consideration of any pice that may have been caus caused to the defendant by the delay.

In the present case the defendant submits that the applicatiould be refused. That submission is made on two basis.&#160 Firounsel for the defendanendant submits that the plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why she did not give notice between the date of the accident and May 1997 when she gave instructions t lawyer. Mr Umba has has made bmisubmission in respect of this aspect.

I accept the submission made by the defendant on this aspect. There is no evider informaformation in the plaintiff’s affidavit as to why she did not give any notice or instruct any lawyer between the date of the alleged accident and May 1997. I think part of the a lies lies in the fact t hat she says she was hospitalised for about six weeks. But even then sfers no expo explanation for her failure between November 1nd May 1997.

The second ground is much more serious.ious. In ground the defendant sunt submits that the police accident t is questionable because ouse of serious defects in it, thus the defendant is prejudiced. For instahe police accidencident repas dated 29 May 1996, some some three months before the accident. The of this accident is nois not stated, but on the front rignd corner, on the first page, the date is stated as 13 Sept September 1996. It is submitted that gives these discrepancies whic quite serious, the whole cole claim is a suspicious one.

Mr concedes that&#hat there are dpancies in the the re, but submits that despite these discrepancies the court shrt should nevertheless grant the extension. Heitted that no weihouldivuldiven to these dise discrepancies at this stage to determinermine the fate of this application.

I consider that these discrepanin the report gave rise to a real question as to the genuinenuineness of the claim. I am satisfhat the plaintiaintiff has not discharged her onus in establishing sufficient cause.

In the circumstances the application is refused and I make no order costs.

Lawyers for the Plaintiff: Acanufa & Ass; Associates

Lawyers for the Respondent: Young & Williams