Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Exxonmobil PNG Ltd v Tukupa Walo Incorporated Land Group (No 16078) [2025] PGNC 151; N11287 (2 May 2025)

N11287

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CIA NO. 36 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
EXXONMOBIL PNG LIMITED
Appellant/Applicant

AND:
TUKUPA WALO INCORPORATED LAND GROUP (no 16078)
Respondent/First Contemnor

WAIGANI: PURDON-SULLY J
25 APRIL, 2 MAY 2025

CONTEMPT - In connexion with proceedings in Court - Notice of Motion for contempt – Elements of contempt considered – Whether there had been effective service - Contempt made out as detailed in Statement of Charge – Contempt found to be wilful and deliberate - National Court Rules, Order 14 rules 35-50.

Cases cited
Daiva v Pukali, Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [2002] N2289
Finance Corporation Ltd v Kombra [2020] N8285
Gaman Holdings Pty Ltd v v Labu Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] N2016
Ian Augerea v. Todagia Kelola (2014) N5582
ILGS Globe Project Area Inc Land Groups v Mineral Resources Development Company Limited [2006] N3066
Martin Kenehe v Michael Pearson (2009) N3763
Miller v. Knox [1838] EngR 648; (1838) 4 Bing NC 574; 6 Scott 1; 132 ER, 910
Newsat Ltd v Telikom PNG Ltd, ICCC and The State (2007) N3447
Ome Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [2002] PGNC 61; N2289
Peter Luga v Richard Sikani and The State (2002) N2286
PNG Power Ltd v Registrar of the National Court [2013] SC1335
Richard Sikani v The State and Peter Luga (2003) SC807
Ross Bishop and Others v Bishop Bros Engineering Pty Ltd and Others [1988-89] PNGLR 533
Solomon Tato v. Samson Akuani (2016) SC1511
The State v Foxy Kia Tala, Re Detective Constable Corney Winjan [1995] PNGLR 303
Tzen Pacific Ltd v Innovest Ltd [2015] SC1454

Counsel
Mr A Roden-Paru with Ms A Jiki for the applicant
Mr Edward Peno as Chairman of the first contemnor
Mr H Maladina for second contemnor

1. PURDON-SULLY J: This is the Court’s decision with respect to the applicant’s Notice of Motion for punishment for contempt of two contemnors filed on 28 July 2022 pursuant to Order 14 r 42(1) and r 49(1) of the National Court Rules (NCR).
2. The Notice of Motion is supported by a Statement of Charge filed 28 July 2022.
3. The applicant brings a charge of contempt against:
   1. The Tukupa Walo Incorporated Land Group (No 16078), the respondent to these proceedings (first contemnor)
   2. Edward Peno Taja (commonly referred to as Edward Peno) (second contemnor).
4. The Notice of Motion is supported by various affidavits personally served on the alleged contemnors marked as Exhibits 1 to 9. An Application Book was filed on 31 January 2025 pursuant to Court order.
5. The Notice of Motion relevantly reads:

1. Pursuant to Order 14 Rule 42(1) of the National Court Rules, Tukupa Walo Incorporated Land Group (No. 16078), the Respondent/First Contemnor, be charged and dealt with for contempt of the Court Order of 13 April 2022, particulars of which are contained in the Statement of Charge filed with this Notice of Motion.

2. Pursuant to Order 14 Rule 42 (1) and Order 14 Rule 49 (1) of the National Court Rules, Tukupa Walo Incorporated Land Group (No. 16078), the Respondent/First Contemnor be punished for contempt of this Honourable Court and be punished by sequestration or fine or both.

3. Pursuant to Order 14 Rule 42(1) of the National Court Rules, Edward Peno Taja, the Second Contemnor, be charged and dealt with for contempt of the Court Order of 13 April 2022, particulars of which are contained in the Statement of Charge filed with this Notice of Motion.

4. Pursuant to Order 14 Rule 42 (1) and Order 14 Rule 49 (1) of the National Court Rules, Edward Peno Taja, the Second Contemnor be punished for contempt of this Honourable Court and be sentenced to imprisonment or fined or both.

5. The Appellant's costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the Defendant/Contemnor on a solicitor/client basis to be taxed, if not agreed.

6. The contempt proceedings arise out of the contemnors’ alleged breach of an order of 13 April 2022 (the injunction order) as extended on 27 April 2022 (injunction extension order).
   
7. The injunction order provided that pending the determination of this proceeding or until further order of the Court, the first contemnor and its Chairman, the second contemnor Edward Peno Taja, their servants, agents, supporters and relatives of the second contemnor Edward Peno Taja be restrained from:
   
   1. causing or setting up blockades or in any other way interfering with the Appellant's or its employees and/or its contractors and their respective employees access to and use of the Hides Gas Conditioning Plant (HGCP) and work sites in PDL7 Hides;
   2. entering upon the land within the fenced area of the HGCP and other work sites in PDL7 Hides or within 100 metres of such sites;
   100. entering upon any work site of the Appellant or its contractors or within 100 meters of the HGCP site at PDL7 Hides;
   4. approaching and or impeding any vehicle being used by the Appellant, its employees and/or its contractors and their respective employees at PDL7 Hides;
   5. intimidating, coercing or making threats by word of mouth, letter, telephone, email or otherwise against the Appellant, its employees and/or its contractors and their respective employees or encouraging others to do so;
   6. Attempting to enforce or enforcing the decision of the Petroleum Warden dated 16 November 2021 in EDC 1 of 2021 ExxonMobil PNG Limited pending determination of the proceedings; or
   4. harming, preventing, interfering or attempting to harm, prevent or interfere with the Appellant, its employees and/or its contractors and their respective employees or encouraging others to do so.
8. The matter was originally heard before another Judge on 13 December 2022. A transcript of the proceedings is in evidence (AB Tab 23). Both contemnors were represented in those proceedings and the second contemnor was represented in these proceedings.
9. A ruling was adjourned to 10 March 2023. A decision was not handed down and a mis-trial declared.
10. The matter came before this Court on 25 April 2025 for a rehearing of the contempt charges.
11. Counsel for the applicant helpfully provided the Court with an outline of the steps required to be followed by the Court in hearing a contempt application. A copy was provided to Counsel for the second contemnor who raised no issue with the process as outlined therein.
12. The Statement of Charge, as interpreted in Tok Pisin, was read to the first and second contemnor, the second contemnor on 25 April 2025 and the Chairman of the first contemnor Mr. Peno today. Both denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. No issue was taken that Mr, Peno did not have authority to do so on behalf of the first contemnor.
13. The relevant parts of the Statement of Charge read:

(a) The First Contemnor be charged and punished for contempt of this Honourable Court for wilfully breaching paragraphs (a), (e) and (d) (secondly occurring) of the Court Order made by this Court in this proceeding on 13 April 2022 and entered on 13 April 2022.

(b) The Second Contemnor be charged and punished for contempt of this Honourable Court for wilfully breaching paragraphs (a), (e) and (d) (secondly occurring) of the Court Order made by this Court in this proceeding on 13 April 2022 and entered on 13 April 2022.

14. No issues of competency were raised on behalf of the contemnors.
15. The charges arise out of these proceedings, CIA NO. 36 OF 2021 ExxonMobile Png Limited v Tukupa Walo Incorporated Land Group (no 16078).
16. While the second contemnor is not a party to the proceedings that does not prohibit contempt proceedings being taken against him (Daiva v Pukali, Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [2002] N2289). No issue was raised by Counsel for the second contemnor in that regard.
17. The second contemnor was required for cross-examination at the hearing. He was asked two questions. Firstly, he was asked if he had a mobile phone. He said he did. He was then asked if the number of his phone was 7136 8363. He agreed that it was. There was no re-examination.
18. Notwithstanding a Notice of Appearance filed on behalf of the First Contemnor in these proceedings, Mr Maladina of Counsel appeared only for the second contemnor.

BACKGROUND

19. By way of relevant background, the applicant is a registered company in Papua New Guinea, the operator of the PNG LNG Gas Project (the project) and holder of inter alia petroleum development licences (PDL) 7 issued on 8 December 2009.
20. The project is an integrated development for the commercialisation of gas resources in the Hela, Southern Highlands and Western provinces of Papua New Guinea principally from the Hides, Angore and Juha gas fields. Gas from these areas is transported by pipeline to the Hides Conditioning Plant in Hides, Hela Province where it is treated and sent by a 700 km pipeline to the LNG Plant near Port Moresby where it is converted into liquid form ready for shipping.
21. The gas conditioning facility known as the Hides Gas Conditioning Plant is located within the PDL 7 licence area (the Hides facility).
22. An airstrip known as the Komo Airport was constructed for the project. It is used extensively to transport the applicant’s employees and contractors from Port Moresby to work at the Hides facility and Wellpads.
23. The first contemnor was incorporated on 15 September 2009 as a land group pursuant to the Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974 and as such capable of being sued. By such incorporation the Tukupa Walo Customary group of persons (the clan) were recognised as an incorporated land group (ILG).
24. The first contemnor is the registered owner of a special agricultural lease and business lease (SABL) issued on or about 23 September 2009 over land containing an area of 60.62 hectares.
25. While the project operates over 244 hectares of land, approximately 8.33 hectares of area over which the SABL was issued was incorporated into and became part of the project where the Hides facility was constructed.
26. At incorporation the second contemnor was Chairman and member of the body to control the affairs of the first contemnor. He has continued in that office. The late Mr Moses P Taja (Moses Peno), his brother, was its Treasurer. Mr Matalu Taya, the inaugural paramount Chief of the clan, is also an executive officer.
27. The second contemnor is described on the unchallenged evidence as “an influential and important member of the land group and the Tukupa Walo clan” (AB 23 p387) and a “strong leader of his people the Tukupa Walo” (affidavit of Mr Michael Welly AB p313).
28. Between 2012 and 2017 the first contemnor commenced four (4) unsuccessful proceedings in the National Court against the applicant. In three (3) of those proceedings the second contemnor, as Chairman of the first contemnor, was lead co-plaintiff in his capacity as Chairman. The various Writs or Originating Summons sought inter alia declarations, restraints, injunctions, asserting inter alia breach of constitutional rights and the seeking of the payment of compensation (annexure KC-7 to the affidavit of Ms Cholai filed 28 July 2022).
29. In about September 2020 the first and second contemnors made an application under the relevant legislation for a warden to determine the amount of compensation payable by the applicant in respect of the relevant area captured within the project the subject of the SABL. The application is annexure KC-7 to the affidavit of Ms Cholai filed 28 July 2022.
30. The application is typed on the Tukupa Walo Limited (Tukupa Walo Land Group Incorporation) letterhead, written in English and is signed by the second contemnor on behalf of the first contemnor as Chairman, Chief Taya as the Deputy Chairman and the late Moses Peno as Treasurer.
31. The compensation application which runs to twelve (12) pages comprised:
    • an Executive Summary
    • Factual Background
    • Claims for compensation and justification under four (4) separate headings inter alia with reference to:
      • business and infrastructure development grants, a high infrastructure project agreement grant and ministerial and government commitments;
      • loss of business with reference to spin off business activities which the clan asserted it was able to provide including services in labour hire, security, transport hire and camp management and catering; and
      • detailed financial calculations to support its compensation claim.
      • Conclusion
32. The application attached documentation supporting the first contemnor’s application claims.
33. On 16 November 2021 the warden determined compensation in favour of the first contemnor in a sum in excess of K258 million (compensation award).
34. On 29 November 2021 the applicant appealed the compensation award.
35. On 9 December 2021 by letter signed by the second contemnor as Chairman of the first contemnor, by Chief Taya as Deputy Chairman and the late Moses Peno as Treasurer, the applicant’s refusal to accept the decision with respect to the compensation payment and appeal was noted, as was the award made under the relevant legislative provisions. The applicant was given fourteen (14) days to remove its assets from the project area. The applicant was also informed that if it did not do so then it would be illegally trespassing on the subject land, the first contemnor reserving its rights to take action to reclaim the land (annexure KC-9 to affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 12 April 2022).
36. The letter was on the first contemnor’s letterhead, typed in English and marked to the attention of the relevant officer of the applicant. It was copied to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Petroleum, the Secretary of the Department of Petroleum and the warden.
37. On 21 December 2021 the compensation payment was stayed by order of the National Court (stay order).
38. The applicant’s lawyers responded by letter dated 22 December 2021, marked to the attention of the second contemnor. The letter inter alia informed the first contemnor that the applicant occupied the project area lawfully, that there was no lawful basis for its demand and any attempt to disrupt the applicant’s operations by physically occupying the land would be unlawful and met inter alia by an application for restraints, including referral for the laying of criminal charges.
39. The applicant’s letter and the stay order was brought to the attention of the first and second contemnors by email at the email address on the first contemnor’s letterhead and by hand (annexure KC-10 to affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 28 July 2022; affidavit of service of Mek Tumul filed 21 December 2021).
40. The letter and stay order were personally served on the late Moses Peno, Treasurer of the first contemnor and the second contemnor at Boroko on 22 December 2022.
41. By letter dated 28 March 2022 addressed to the applicant and signed by the second contemnor as Chairman, Chief Taya as Deputy Chairman and the late Moses Peno as Treasurer, the first contemnor demanded the withdrawal of the applicant’s appeal (annexure KC-11 to affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 28 July 2022).
42. The letter was on the first contemnor’s letterhead, typed in English, marked to the attention of the relevant officer of the applicant, and copied to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Petroleum, Minister for Police, Governor of Hela Province, Commissioner of Police, Commander of the PNG Defence Force, Provincial Police Commander, the applicant’s Security Field Commander and the warden.
43. The letter commenced with the following reference:

REF: FOURTEEN (14) DAYS EVICTION NOTICE ON TUKUPA WALO ILG TITLED LAND PORTION 14C, MILINCH OF SISA FOURMIL OF WABAG, CAT. NO. 29/577, VOLUME 16, FOLIO;89

44. The letter made the following demands:
    1. ExxonMobil (PNG) Ltd to honour (sic) the compensation decision of the Chief Warden’s decision handed own on the 16 November 2021.
    2. Tukupa Walo ILG request the ExxonMobil (PNG) Ltd to withdraw the Appeal case No 38 of 2021 as we do not have the funds to pursue lengthy legal case.
    3. ExxonMobil (PNG) Ltd to recognise Tukupa Walo ILG for the LNG Project Business participation immediately.
    4. The PNG National Government to honour (sic) its commitments on MoA and MoU benefit Claim payment to Tukupa Walo ILG.
    5. ExxonMobil (PNG) Ltd to resolve outstanding land lease payments for the use of the current 8.33 ha within the plant site and commit to future agreements on any extended land use owned by Tukupa Walo ILG.
45. The letter further advised as follows:

Failure to meet the above demands within the 14 days as of Monday 28 March to Monday 11 April 2022, Tukupa Walo will take necessary actions to reclaim our registered customary land.

46. By letter dated 1 April 2022 addressed to the second contemnor, the applicant’s lawyers responded by reiterating the contents of their letter of 22 December 2021. The letter was served by hand and by email at the email address shown on the first contemnor’s letterhead (annexure KC-12 to affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 27 July 2022).
47. On 12 April 2022, in the early hours of the morning, the entrance to the Hides facility was blockaded by a large group of people (affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 12 April 2022 at [8] et seq) (the April incident). Police were called. Those present were asked to leave. They refused.
48. The following banner was displayed during the April incident:

EVICTION NOTICE
TO EXXON MOBIL
MEET OUR DEMANDS
OR
VACATE OUR LAND!!
By TUKUPA WALO IGL

49. A further banner said:

OUR DEMANDS

1. Honor (sic) DPE Wardens Decision
2. Withdraw Court case
3. Business Participation
4. Pay MOA/MOU Commitment
5. Resolve Land Lease Issue
50. Photographs of the assembled crowd and banners are found at annexure “E” to the affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 12 April 2022 and annexure KC-13 to Affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 27 July 2022.
51. On 13 April 2022 the injunction order was made.
52. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that it was the conduct of the first and second contemnors and others that gave rise to the injunction order. It is contended that the conduct included blocking off and barring entry to the applicant’s facility and a threat that the behaviour would continue until the compensation award was paid.
53. On 14 April 2022 the injunction order was served by Inspector David Mattes on the late Moses Peno as Treasurer of the first contemnor at the main gate of the applicant’s facility. At the same time, the late Moses Peno was shown an original copy of the order. Mr Moses Peno accepted the document (affidavit of Mr Mattes filed 7 August 2022).
54. Following service the police were able to disperse those blocking the entrance to the facility.
55. On 27 April 2022 the injunction extension order was made.
56. By letter dated 28 April 2022, addressed to the first contemnor, marked to the attention of the second contemnor and served by email at the email address shown on the first contemnors’ letterhead and also by hand, the first contemnor was served with the injunction order and injunction extension order. It was reminded inter alia to strictly comply with the terms of the order of 13 April 2022 (annexure KC-17 to affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 27 July 2022).
57. On 3 May 2022 the second contemnor was on the evidence of Mr Tumul, the applicant’s lawyer, personally served at the offices of the applicant’s lawyers with the injunction order, the injunction extension order and the letter from the applicant’s lawyers dated 28 April 2022 (affidavit of Mel Tumul filed 3 August 2022). The second contemnor denies that he was properly served.
58. Relevant to the chronology there is evidence to suggest that in June 2022 representatives from the Department of Petroleum and Energy and the MRDC held discussions with the first contemnor and agreed to compensate them for their legal costs in the sum of K5M, however the first contemnor asserts that payment was never made.
59. By letter/petition dated 13 July 2022 addressed to the Secretary of the Department of Petroleum, David Manau and copied to the applicant and received by the applicant on 14 July 2022 the first contemnor, under the hand of forty-one (41) clan members advised of the recent death of the late Moses Peno on 5 July 2022. It sought financial support from stakeholders and that the applicant involve the clan in Business Participation (annexure KC-18 to affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 27 July 2022).
60. The letter/petition concluded as follows:

... Failure to honour our demands before closure of business on Tuesday 19 July 2022 will result in disruption of the smooth flow of LNG operation.

[Highlighting in original]

61. The first signature on the letter/petition was “Edward Peno” and dated 12 July 2022.
62. The letter/petition was on the first contemnor’s letterhead, typed in English and copied to the Commissioner of Police, Commander of the PNG Defence Force, Provincial Police Commander Hela, Defence Commander (PNG LNG Project site), the applicant’s Community Affairs Manager and Managing Director, Managing Directors of MRDC and KPHL Prime Minister and Hela Governor.
63. Along with a copy of the late Moses Peno’s death certificate, a warranty to bury and Coroner’s Certificate consequent upon his death, the letter/petition attached two (2) letters dated 12 July 2022. The first was to Mr Augustine Mano, Managing Director, Mineral Resources Development Company (MRDC) from Mr David Manau Secretary of the Department of Petroleum requesting funding assistance for the clan. It noted relevantly security concerns for the project in the following terms:

The Warden’s decision was appealed against by ExxonMobil the operator of PDL 7 and PNG LNG. ExxonMobil has exercised its rights under law in the National Court and outcome of the court is pending. Tuguba Walo recently threatened PDL 7 operations and demand State intervention to consider their aspiration, however, some consideration should be accorded to the struggles the Tuguba Walo’s have ensued over the years.

It is considered of the last sentence of the above paragraph that ‘project security’ is of paramount concern to the Department of Petroleum that I am requesting funding assistance to assist the Walos.

Find attached two (2) letters from the Tuguba Walo ILG dated 26 April 2022 and 27 April 2022 seeking assistance from various Stakeholders, thus have expressed that they (Walos) are prepared and willing to have open discussions with other stakeholders that can result in a best way forward for an amicable solution to avoid further disruptions.

[Highlighting in original]

64. The second letter to Hon Philip Undialu MP, Governor of Hela Province, also from Mr Manau, again sought funding assistance for the clan in similar terms to that of the first letter.
65. By letter dated 19 July 2022 the applicant’s lawyers responded inter alia reminding the first contemnor of the existing court orders and that the applicant would enforce its rights under the orders.
66. The final paragraph of the letter was in the following terms:

Our workforce of about 4000 (over 91% PNG citizens), about 65,000 landowners across the Project footprint including the national, provincial and local level government rely on the salaries and wages, various royalties, levies and taxes from the Project. It is important for all stakeholders that no area of project operation is impacted by the unlawful actions of a minority few. We remain hopeful that legal action mentioned in the above paragraph will not be required and that Tukupa Walo Land Group Incorporated will at all times act in a cooperative and peaceful manner and according to law.

67. On 21 July 2022 the applicant received a security incident report relating to events that occurred on 20 July 2022 (July incident), that is the day after the applicant’s letter was sent to the first contemnor as outlined, inter alia to the effect that at 6 am on 22 July 2022 a group of eighty (80) persons predominately from the clan blocked the main supply route from Komo airport to the Hides project facility resulting in vehicles being used by the applicant, some of which transported employees and contractors to the facility, being prevented from passing and that threatening statements were made by the second contemnor as to what would occur if the their demands were not met.
68. The report, in evidence, noted inter alia:
    1. A clearance patrol from the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary engaged. The restraining order “was highlighted but had little effect in leveraging the group to comply”.
    2. A large banner highlighting grievances was in place.
    100. The second contemnor “spoke over the phone with CA Field Manager: demanding full payment of previously committed funds from the Government of PNG. If not paid, he stated that ‘people could lose their lives’ and “after this protest the group will mobilize to HGCP and Komo Airfield”.
    4. “HGSF personnel highlighted the unlawfulness of the activity and breach of a RO.”
    5. “Although there were no hostilities, locals intimated if the HGSF used forced to remove them they would escalate their response. They highlighted Tugaba Walo leader Moses Peno (brother of Edward Peno) had passed recently, waiting for closer (sic) of payments and they were prepared to do the same. Advice from HGSF Commander was to avoid escalating the situation at this stage.”
    6. “... as a direct result of the blockade, all works and road movement from Komo Airport was suspended which affected routine road convoy between Angore, Hides and the charter flight was diverted to passengers to a rotary air bridge between Komo, Angore and Hides, estimated aviation costs per day are US5,000.”
    7. “RPNGC MS03 Commander Inspector George GIM notified at 6.40 hrs on 20 July 2022” and “RPNGC and PNGDF initially supported a CA engagement after which they were also unsuccessful in negotiating”.
69. The security incident report and accompanying photos are marked annexure KC-20 to the affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai filed 27 July 2022. The photographs depict inter alia a road blockade and large banner outlining the demands required to be met and a map of the location of the blockade on an access road between Komo Airport and the Hides facility.
70. In his affidavit filed 24 August 2022 the applicant’s security manager. Alex White deposes to the impact on the applicant and its employees of the July incident including suspension of road movements to and from Komo Airport and the organising of helicopter charter flights to transport employees to the project facility and work sites.
71. On 1 August 2022 the second contemnor was personally served with the applicant’s Notice of Motion for contempt, Statement of Charge and affidavit of Kymerlee Cholai all filed on 28 July 2022. The second contemnor signed an Acknowledgment of Service (Affidavit of Matthew Asa filed 3 August 2022).
72. On 23 August 2022 the second contemnor filed an affidavit sworn the same date which at [6] deposes as follows:
    6. I verily believe that such purported contempt proceedings filed by Exxon against me and my ILG is not in the best interest of the entire PNG LNG PROJECT. I stand ready and willing to co-operate with EXXON on a peaceful and way forward approach to discontinue any purported landowner disruptions in whatever form or shape that could have negative effects on the smooth and lawful operations of EXXON within our ILG’s registered land areas identified as potion of land covering 8.33 hectares in the Lomo area of Hela Province.

[Underlining for emphasis]

73. At [9] and [12] of the same affidavit the second contemnor deposes to the contempt application that had been served on him and the first contemnor, seeking an order from the Court that it be set aside and or an adjournment of seven (7) days be granted to “give detailed instructions to our lawyer in preparation for the pending contempt proceedings”.
74. Annexure “A” to the affidavit, being a Certificate of Recognition of its ILG, evidenced the second contemnor as Chairman and the late Moses Peno as Treasurer of the first contemnor, each of whom along with Chief Taya held dispute settlement authority for the first contemnor.
75. On 15 September 2022 the second contemnor filed a further affidavit sworn on the 13 September 2022.
76. At [3] of that affidavit the second contemnor said, in part:

As Chairman and leader of my Tukupa Walo ILG, I stand ready to pursue this matter in behalf of my ILG members and its executives and the overall welfare of the people of Papua New Guinea on the other hand, with a way forward approach to resolving the issues at hand in a fair an amicable manner and not necessarily to resort to physical violence and warfare...

[Emphasis added]

77. The second contemnor addressed the injunction order and contempt proceedings at [8] to [19] making the following deposition and/or admissions:
    1. That the first contemnor gave notice to the applicant on two separate occasions to vacate its land asserting “illegal” occupation (at [14]).
    2. That the first contemnor was aggrieved by the applicant’s failure to payment the compensation amount and the notices to vacate were connected to the compensation payment, which had been stayed by Court orders pending determination of the applicant’s appeal (at 14]).
    100. That the first contemnor was also aggrieved by its failure to receive “benefits” that had been outstanding for twelve years (at [14]).
    4. The first and/or the second contemnor were responsible for the April incident (“On or about the first week of April we decided to conduct a sit-in protest” and then blocked off the Hides Gas Conditioning Plant. The appellant company including the ‘sub-contractors’ were never given any room to move freely within and outside the Plant area. The blockage of the main gate continued for about 3-6 days”). The ‘sit in protest blockages” were removed after achieving “successful negotiated outcomes” with the applicant’s representatives (at [15]).
78. With respect to the second contemnor’s deposition as particularised there is no evidence adduced by the first or second contemnors or otherwise that:
    1. the applicant was unlawfully occupying the first contemnor’s land;
    2. the applicant did not have a legal right to challenge the amount or compensation payable by it to the first contemnor, as would the first contemnor if it had been aggrieved by the award; or
    100. the failure of the first contemnor to receive unspecified benefits was relevant to the first and/or second contemnor’s obligation to meet the terms of the injunction order.
79. Further, there was no evidence in either affidavit to suggest that the second contemnor was not aware of the contempt proceedings, did not understand what the proceedings involved or that he was not authorised to speak on behalf of the first contemnor (see for example affidavit filed 15 September 2022 at [3]). Nor is there evidence in either affidavit where the second contemnor raises issue with respect to the proper service upon him or the first contemnor with respect to the injunction order and was thus not aware of its terms.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

80. The legal principles the Court is required to apply are settled in this jurisdiction and as otherwise listed in the List of Authorities provided to the Court (Ross Bishop and Others v Bishop Bros Engineering Pty Ltd and Others [1988-89] PNGLR 533; The State v Foxy Kia Tala, Re Detective Constable Corney Winjan [1995] PNGLR 303; Gaman Holdings Pty Ltd v v Labu Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] N2016; Peter Luga v Richard Sikani and The State (2002) N2286; Daiva v Pukali, Ome Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [2002] N2289; Ome Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [2002] PGNC 61; N2289; Richard Sikani v The State and Peter Luga (2003) SC807; ILGS Globe Project Area Inc Land Groups v Mineral Resources Development Company Limited [2006] N3066; Newsat Ltd v Telikom PNG Ltd, ICCC and The State (2007) N3447, Martin Kenehe v Michael Pearson (2009) N3763;PNG Power Ltd v Registrar of the National Court [2013] SC1335; Ian Augerea v. Todagia Kelola (2014) N5582; Solomon Tato v. Samson Akuani (2016) SC1511; Tzen Pacific Ltd v Innovest Ltd [2015] SC1454).
81. Shortly put, contempt is a disobedience to the Court (Miller v. Knox [1838] EngR 648; (1838) 4 Bing NC 574; 6 Scott 1; 132 ER, 910 per Patterson J cited with approval in Daiva v Pukali, Ome Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [ 2002] PGNC 61; N2289).
82. In Daiva v Pukali, Ome Ome Forests Ltd v Cheong [ 2002] PGNC 61; N2289 Kandakasi J (as he then was) after consideration of the authorities said:

From all of these authorities it is clear to me that, where a person obliged to comply with an order, direction or judgement of the Court, fails to comply and such failure is intentional or deliberate, that amounts to contempt of Court. If however, the failure to comply is by a mere oversight or wrong legal advice or accidental, there can be no contempt. I would add to that list, a lack of knowledge of the existence of the Court’s direction, order or judgement, due to say lack of service of the orders or not being made aware of the existence of the direction, order of judgement in question.

Where a person is directed, ordered or adjudged by a Court to do sometime or abstain from doing something, he or she is obliged to comply. The need to do so arises from the moment he or she is served or is made aware of the existence, of the Court’s direction, order or judgement. He or she is required to comply unless there is a set aside or variation of it rendering compliance unnecessary. After all, the law is that, unless a direction, or an order or a judgement of a Court is set aside, it is valid and must be honoured.

....

All reasonable steps must be taken to comply with all directions, orders or judgements of a Court.

....

The intention or the state of mind of the person who is required to comply with a direction, order or judgement of the Court can only be inferred from the conduct of such a person. For no one except God can tell the state of mind of a person. If evidence adduced at the hearing of a contempt charge reveals for example repeated unsuccessful requests for compliance of the orders, directions or the judgements in question that would be indicative of an intention not to comply. Similarly, unsuccessful repeated calls upon an alleged contemnor to desist from conduct that is contrary to a Court direction, order or a judgement would point to an intention not to comply. This is why I said it is appropriate to take into account any continuous breach or a failure to comply after the issue of contempt proceedings as that would demonstrate the alleged contemnor’s state of mind.

83. In Ian Augerea v. Todagia Kelola (2014) N5582, Cannings J summarised the elements of this type of contempt in these proceedings (that is, for disobeying a court order) as follows:
    1. the order must be clear and unambiguous;
    2. the order must be properly served on the defendants; and
    100. the defendants must have deliberately failed to comply with it.
84. I adopt these elements in my consideration of this matter.
85. Contempt of Court is a criminal matter and the applicant must prove the existence of the three elements beyond reasonable doubt. If all elements are proven against the contemnor, the contemnor will be guilty and the parties will be heard on the question of punishment.
86. Order 14 rules 37 to 50 of the NCR provides the procedure for contempt.
87. Where contempt is committed in connection with proceedings in the Court the application for punishment for contempt is made by way of motion on notice in the proceedings (Order 14 r 42(1) of the NCR).
88. In discussing the process to be followed when dealing with an allegation for contempt the Supreme Court (Kandakasi (as he then was), Manuhu, Kawi, JJ) said in PNG Power Ltd v Registrar of the National Court [2013] SC1335 at [23]:

Again the process to follow in dealing with an allegation of contempt is, as was made clear by the Supreme Court decision in the Andrew Kwimberi case. There the Court said, although contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, the procedure to follow is as is prescribed and comprehensively laid down by the National Court Rules O.14 rr. 37 - 50. A noncompliance of this procedure does not render the proceedings void. Under this procedure all that is needed is a notice of motion (if the contempt arises out of an existing proceeding) with a statement of the charge, which is supported by an affidavit of the relevant facts giving rise to the charge. These must then be filed and served on the alleged contemnors. Thereafter, the charge would be heard in the usual way as in a criminal process and a decision arrived at.

89. In Tzen Pacific Ltd v Innovest Ltd [2015] SC 1454 the Supreme Court said at [23]:

The conventional and proper way of conducting contempt of court proceeding is to conduct it as if it were a criminal trial (PNG Coffee Industry Board v Panga Coffee Factory Pty Ltd [1990] PNGLR 363). This means that the court will apply standard rules of criminal practice and procedure. Thus:

1. the charge will be explained to the contemnor, who will be arraigned and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty;
2. the court will apply the criminal standard of proof, i.e. the party prosecuting the charge bears the onus of proving the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt;

100. if the contemnor is found guilty, the court will administer the allocutus so that the convicted person can address the court on the question of an appropriate punishment.

90. These requirements are reflected in Order 14 r 39 of the NCR which provides:

39. Charge, defence and determination. (55/3)

Where a contemnor is brought before the Court, the Court shall—

(a) cause him to be informed orally of the contempt with which he is charged; and

(b) require him to make his defence to the charge; and

(c) after hearing him, determine the matter of the charge; and

(d) make an order for the punishment or discharge of the contemnor.

91. The procedural and substantive requirements for civil contempt proceedings thus include the following:
    1. Proof of personal service of the order of the Court breached must be provided beyond reasonable doubt;
    2. There can be no contempt if the order of the Court is not clear and unambiguous;
    100. The requirements of natural justice are insisted upon;
    4. The Statement of the Charge must be formulated with precision; and
    5. Contempt must be proved to the criminal standard of proof namely beyond reasonable doubt.
92. Order 14 r 49(1) provides for punishment for contempt.
93. With respect to service, Counsel for the contemnors referred the Court to the dicta of Anis J in Finance Corporation Ltd v Kombra [2020] N8285 who, after referring to the three elements of contempt as noted earlier, said at [45]:

The Supreme Court approved these 3 elements in Solomon Tato v. Samson Akuani (2016) SC1511. In regard to the second element, the Supreme Court added and I quote, the order was properly served or the contemnor was aware of the order. The additional inclusion means that if the alleged contemnor was not served but was aware of the Court Order then that should be sufficient to establish the second element of the contempt charge.

CONSIDERATION

94. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the procedural and substantive requirements for a finding of contempt as outlined have been met, the contemnors conduct resulting in the injunction order later extended by the injunction extension order, the applicant having proven beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnors then breached the injunction order as charged and that each should be found guilty of contempt and be punished.
95. Counsel for the second contemnor takes no issue with the procedural requirements that have been followed, and none has been raised on behalf of the first contemnor, nor has issue been taken with respect to the charge being clear and unambiguous. However, on behalf of the second contemnor, issue is taken with whether the orders were properly served on the second contemnor. It is submitted that Mr Tumul when affecting service deposed to meeting the second contemnor at his reception and giving him the injunctive order and injunctive extension order. Mr Tumul deposed that he knew the second contemnor from previous meetings with him and therefore effected service.
96. However, it is submitted on behalf of the second contemnor that Mr Tumul must have then been aware that:
    1. the second contemnor was a villager who did not read, write or speak English well;
    2. that Mr Tumul was going to serve him; and
    100. the second contemnor was not a party to the proceedings between the applicant and the first contemnor.
97. It is further submitted that the fact there is an interpreter in Court at the contempt hearing suggests that the second contemnor had an issue understanding the English language and when asked by the applicant’s former lawyer in the earlier contempt proceedings he denied being served.
98. It is further contended that the Court orders should have been served on the second contemnor’s lawyer and that the second contemnor should have been asked to come to Mr Tumul’s office with his lawyer or if the lawyer was not present Mr Tumul should have at the very least explained to the second contemnor the contents of the documents he was serving on him so that the second contemnor would have been aware of the order.
99. The latter proposition is not however persuasive because if the submissions advanced on behalf of the second contemnor are to be accepted, Mr. Tumul explaining the orders to the second contemnor would have served no useful purpose because of the second contemnor’s asserted poor understanding of English.
100. The Court is able to find beyond reasonable doubt that the first contemnor was properly served:
     1. on 14 April 2022 by Inspector David Mattes personally handing a sealed copy of the injunction order to the late Moses Peno who accepted the document, Mr Moses Peno being the Treasurer of the first contemnor at the time and able to receive service.
     2. on 3 May 2022 by Mr Tumul personally handing a sealed copy of the injunction order and other documents to the second contemnor who accepted the documents, the second contemnor being the Chairman of the first contemnor at the time (and its continuing Chairman).
101. Pursuant to s 30 of the Land Groups Incorporation Act which deals with service of documents on an ILG, service may be effected inter alia on a member of the committee which both the late Moses Peno and the second contemnor where at the relevant time by virtue of the certificate of recognition of the first contemnor.
102. The Court further finds beyond reasonable doubt that the second contemnor was properly and personally served with the injunction order and the injunction extension order on 3 May 2022.
103. As to particular submissions made with respect to service on the second contemnor that may go to considerations that centre on natural justice, the Court is comfortably satisfied that service on the second contemnor of the injunction order and other documents would have brought to his knowledge an awareness of the contents of the terms of the order with which he and the first contemnor was required to comply.
104. In reaching that conclusion context and background is relevant.
105. The second contemnor is not a litigation novice. He has been lead Plaintiff in a number of court proceedings in the National Court and there is nothing on the evidence to suggest that he has been unable to access legal representation or inform himself as and when required to do so. The relevant court orders served on him displayed an official Court stamp on each page, the same stamp found on the documents in evidence relating to the appeal proceedings, the same stamp found on the various National Court proceedings initiated by the first and second contemnors, also in evidence. I am comfortably satisfied to the requisite standard that notwithstanding that he was not a party in the appeal proceedings, the second contemnor would have known on receipt that they involved court documents and he needed to and would have, given his history, taken advice if required if his English and/or literacy was of such a standard that he required assistance with the court order.
106. Service of the documents occurred at Allens, the law offices of the applicant. The second contemnor was Chairman of the first contemnor then involved in litigation with the applicant. He was not attending upon the applicant’s lawyers for social reasons. Common sense suggests that he would have known that. When handed the documents he would have known they were legal documents for the reasons I have given and that he had a duty to familiarise himself with the contents. On receiving the documents, he was prepared to sign an Acknowledgment of Service.
107. The second contemnor did not present to this Court as a person who would do something he was not minded doing nor someone unable to speak up for himself if he was unsure of something. During the taking of the oath before me, for example, he raised an issue before saying “So help me God”. That issue appeared to resolve itself however the point is, in a formal Court room setting, the Court room packed with people, he was not shy or reluctant to speak up and raise a matter with the presiding Judge when he felt he required clarification and that occurred notwithstanding that with respect to the charges against him personally, he was represented by a lawyer in Court.
108. There is no evidence in Mr Tumul’s affidavit that he asked for an interpreter or was reluctant to take the documents served upon him.
109. Further, having a limited education and/or being a humble villager does not suggest a lack of intelligence or resourcefulness or adaptability. History is replete with those of humble beginnings who achieved greatness, including the late Sir Michael Somare, known as the father of this nation, who was born in humble circumstances, English not his native tongue and yet led this country to independence and served as Prime Minister. That is not to suggest that proper regard should not be given by the Court to the circumstances of the second contemnor.
110. However, the second contemnor has been the Chairman of the first contemnor since its inception. On the evidence he is clearly a leader with a skill set viewed by his clan as valuable and on the evidence of his supporters an individual who is highly regarded. It is unlikely that he would have lasted as Chairman for the length of time he has if this was not the case.
111. Nor on the evidence does the second contemnor present as a man with a rudimentary understanding of human behaviour or social dynamics. Even with expected assistance, a cursory reading of the first contemnor’s compensation application and other written communications in evidence under his hand suggest not only a determined focus but an impressive understanding of power and how to use the levers of power to achieve a desired outcome. On the evidence, he has been able to confidently to communicate a desired outcome, negotiate and make demands, including with those at the highest level of government. He attended these proceedings smartly dressed in a suit and tie and conducted himself with a professional demeanour.
112. Against the sweep of the evidence here and in that context, to suggest that service on the second contemnor should only have been done in the presence of his lawyer to be effective service or that without a lawyer present he would have been left floundering unable to understand the circumstances in which he found himself or unable to take steps to then inform himself if he could not read and/or understand the written word is, respectfully, rejected.
113. Likewise, to suggest that because he required the services of an interpreter in these proceedings the Court should infer from that circumstance that the service effected on him without a lawyer was defective is likewise rejected. There can be a number of reasons why a litigant or witness uses an interpreter in Court proceedings. Relevantly, the Court notes, for example, that the affidavits of the second contemnor filed on 23 August 2022 and 15 September 2022 (AB pp302 and 308) contained no interpreter clause attesting to the fact that the documents had to be read to the second contemnor in a language other than English before he executed his affidavits. The relevance of that is underscored by an attestation clause included in the affidavit of Chief Taya, a document prepared by the same lawyer representing the second contemnor. It suggests the failure to include an interpreter clause in the affidavits of the second contemnor was no oversight and the second contemnor did not require an interpreter to understand the written word in English before signing important legal documents.
114. I accordingly find, as I did with respect to the first contemnor, effective service of the relevant documents was made on the second contemnor.
115. The next element is not contested. The Court accepts that the injunction order was clear and unambiguous in its terms and as such neither the first nor second contemnor could have been left in any doubt that they were restrained from undertaking various activities, which in summary can be described as not to engage in activities or any action which interfered with the applicant’s operations. The relevant paragraphs of the injunction order are 2(1)(a), (e) and (d) (second occurring).
116. Under the terms of those paragraphs the first and second contemnors were restrained from undertaking specific activities and were so restrained from:
     1. Causing or setting up roadblocks or blockades or interfering with the applicant or its employees’ access to and use of the applicant’s facility ((a));
     2. Intimidating or making threats against the applicant or its employees or encouraging others to do so ((e));
     100. Interfering with or attempting to interfere with the applicant or its employees ((d) (second occurring)).
117. Any reasonable person reading the terms of the injunction order or being made aware of its terms would thus have understood that they were inter alia restrained from causing or setting up a blockade or roadblock, interfering with the applicant’s access to or its use of its facility and intimidating or making threats against the applicant or its employees or encouraging others to do so.
118. With respect to the element of natural justice being met, other than in the context of a consideration of effective service, this element was not challenged by Counsel for the second contemnor at the hearing.
119. The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this requirement has been fulfilled. The contemnors have been served. They have been given an opportunity to be heard on the hearing of the charges. They have had the benefit of legal representation at the first contempt hearing and with respect to this hearing, the second contemnor has had the benefit of legal representation. The second contemnor is the first contemnor’s Chairman in these proceedings. The second contemnor has had the benefit of an interpreter. The Statement of Charge has been formulated with clarity and precision and has been put to the second contemnor in his personal capacity and on behalf of the first contemnor as Chairman in these proceedings with the assistance of an interpreter. No issue was taken by the contemnors in that regard. The Application Book, containing the documents sought to be relied upon is in evidence. This Court will give reasons in handing down its decision.
120. While Counsel for the second contemnor raised no defence on behalf of his client in written or oral submissions other than in the context of service and of course the charge which was denied when put to the contemnors, various affidavits filed in support of the second contemnor appear to raise defences which are addressed in the applicant’s written submissions at AB p372 et seq.
121. Mr Peno as Chairman of the first contemnor invited the Court to consider his affidavit evidence in the Application Book together with the evidence filed in his support which I placed on record.
122. I have considered that evidence and where that evidence, either on behalf of the first or second contemnor, raises particular defences I accept the submissions made on behalf of the applicant at [63] to [69] of written submissions (AB pp372 – 374) as to why those defences should be rejected.
123. Firstly, the fact that the blockade with respect to the July incident occurred on land other than the first contemnor’s land is irrelevant under the injunction order. The first and second contemnors were restrained from setting up any blockades. They were also restrained from interfering with the applicant’s access to and use of its facility irrespective of where the restriction to access or use occurred.
124. Secondly, while the applicant accepts that the second contemnor was not personally present at the July incident, his personal presence is not necessary to find him guilty of the contempt charge. The Court accepts he played a role in the July incident. Indeed the Court finds he was the likely “invisible hand” if not the “visible hand” in effective control of the outcome of the day. This is because:
     1. The banner prominently displayed on the day was titled “TUKUPA WALO LIMITED”. Irrespective of where the people who were present lived or the location of the land on which they gathered they gathered under a banner with the name of the first contemnor prominently displayed and that were blocking the road to the Hides facility and interfering with the applicant’s lawful access.
     2. A comparison of the contents of the letter dated 13 July 2022 signed by the second contemnor and the wording on the banner which listed a number of demands are identical, evidence unchallenged and unexplained including by the second contemnor’s witnesses who blamed the relatives of the late Moses Peno’s family for the unlawful activities on the road that day, purportedly by reason of being upset at his death.
     100. Relevantly, and in the end damning evidence, and evidence at odds with the evidence in the affidavits of the second contemnor’s supporters that the second contemnor had nothing to do with the July incident, is the phone number on the banner being the second contemnor’s phone number, confirmed as his, by him, under cross examination.
125. Thirdly, and putting to one side why the unfortunate death of the late Moses Peno had anything to do with the applicant, little weight can be placed on the blockade being set up by his purported disgruntled relatives because when the spokesperson for the blockade, John “Dusty” Tikoby, was asked to remove the blockade by the applicant’s Community Affairs Manager, Mohammad Paul, Mr Paul was told that that was the decision of the second contemnor who had instructed him not to do so. On the evidence Mr Tikoby then telephoned the second contemnor on his mobile phone and allowed him to talk to Mr Paul on his loudspeaker. The conversation, which went on for ten (10) minutes, was overheard by Mr Philemon Aruma who deposed to it at [10] to [12] of his affidavit filed 4 November 2022. During that conversation when told that his petition would be taken to the applicant’s management and asked to clear the roadblock the second contemnor said:

We will not clear the roadblock. We have been waiting for our outstanding payments too long. My people are prepared to die for this cause. Go and tell Kumul Petroleum Holdings and the MRDC to pay the K350M promised to us in Lae during our recent meeting

126. The second contemnor’s own evidence contradicts that an agreement was reached to pay the first contemnor K350M (see [16] of the second contemnor’s affidavit filed 15 September 2022). It is trite to observe that a demand for payment of K350M is not an agreement to pay K350M.
127. The evidence of the conversation between the second contemnor and Mr Tikoby and the shouted support for the sentiments expressed by the second contemnor were not challenged by any affidavit by Mr Tikoby or other members of the clan or others who were present and overheard the conversation. Given that the second contemnor led evidence from various supporters denying his involvement in the July incident, and given that the first and second contemnors have been aware of Mr Aruma’s evidence for over two years, the lack of evidence from Mr Tikoby or others challenging important evidence is telling. It entitles the Court to conclude that the evidence to challenge does not exist.
128. Based on that evidence the Court accepts the submission on behalf of the applicant, and is able to conclude beyond reasonable doubt, that on 20 July 2022 the second contemnor:
     1. knew the blockade was in place before being telephoned;
     2. was making decisions concerning the blockade;
     100. had, on behalf of the first contemnor, caused the blockade to be set up to disrupt the applicant’s activities, as threatened in the letter of 13 July 2022 signed by him;
     4. knew that the blockade could be removed if the first contemnor’s demands were met and any attempt to remove the blockade without their demands being met would be forcibly resisted.
129. The only possible interpretation of the matters deposed to in the affidavits of the second contemnor filed on 23 August 2022 and 15 September 2022 supported by the weight of the all of the evidence, was that:
     1. The first and/or second contemnor fully understood that the applicant was going about its lawful business (engaged in “lawful operations”);
     2. That the first and/or the second contemnor knew there were disruptions to the lawful operations of the applicant, that they were responsible for the disruptions and had the power to and were prepared to discontinue those disruptions “in whatever form or shape that could have negative effects on the smooth and lawful operations of EXXON”, if the applicant agreed to their demands; and
     100. That the first and/or the second contemnor would not necessarily engage in “physical violence or warfare”, the clear implication being that they could, and would, if their demands were not met.
130. The sweep of the evidence permits a conclusion that the first and second contemnors were unhappy when the applicant filed an appeal against the compensation payment. They also possibly carried residual grievances and a sense of entitlement arising from purported agreements of longstanding not having been honoured by others. The death of Moses Peno likely added to the view they had been generally wronged including with respect to their need for compensation at a time when the clan was grieving for him. They decided to take matters into their own hands and apply pressure to achieve the outcome they wanted. This was for the applicant to meet their compensation demands and for the applicant to withdraw its appeal and the contempt proceedings. The Court accepts and finds beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second contemnor were responsible for the disruptions and threats as outlined in the Statement of Charge. that they knew their conduct, as so particularised, would be in breach of the injunction order however they then wilfully, intentionally and contemptuously chose not to comply with the injunction order later extended.

CONCLUSION

131. Having been satisfied that the contempt procedures have been followed and having been further satisfied to the requisite standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt, with respect to each of the elements of contempt, the Court has no difficulty in finding the charges as detailed in the Statement of Charge with respect to the first contemnor proven and further the charges detailed in the Statement of Charge with respect to the second contemnor proven.
132. I therefore return a verdict of guilty against each of them.
133. As contempt of Court arising from the breach of a Court order is a serious matter and given the lateness of the hour, I propose to give the first and second contemnors an opportunity to consider the findings made by this Court and the reasons for those findings before taking submissions on penalty.

ORDERS

134. The Court makes the following orders:
     1. Pursuant to Order 14 Rule 42(1) of the National Court Rules:
        1. the first contemnor is found guilty and convicted of contempt as charged in the Statement of Charge filed 28 July 2022.
        2. the second contemnor is found guilty and convicted of contempt as charged in the Statement of Charge filed 28 July 2022.
     2. The matter be adjourned to 21 May at 8.00am to take submissions on penalty and costs.
     3. The second contemnor be required to attend on 21 May 2025 in person.
     4. The applicant file and serve any further submissions intended to be relied upon by 4.00pm 12 May 2025 and the contemnors by 4.00pm on 19 May 2025.
     5. Time to abridge

________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the applicant: Allens
The first contemnor: self-acting by its Chairman
Lawyers for the second contemnors: Young & Williams