N11710

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 470 OF 2021

SOLO MEL trading as Green Lodge
Plaintiff

V

LOLOKORU ESTATE LIMITED
First Defendant

WILLIAM DOME in his capacity as Chairman of Lolokoru Estate Limited
Second Defendant

JOE LINGE in his capacity as Deputy Chairman of Lolokoru Estate Limited
Third Defendant

KIMBE: ANDELMAN J
12 NOVEMBER 2025; 13 FEBRUARY 2026

DAMAGES – Assessment – after entry of default judgement – breach of oral contract – provision of accommodation, associated services and loan of funds – whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim.

The plaintiff operates a lodge. he entered into an agreement with the second and third defendants who were the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the first defendant to provide accommodation, food, beverage and cash advance. The defendants failed to pay the bill. The defendants failed to file defences and default judgment on liability was entered against them.

Held:

(1)	The proceeding is dismissed.

Cases cited
 
William Mel v Coleman Pakalia & Ors [2005] PGSC 36; SC790

Counsel

Mr B Takua, for the plaintiff
Mr A Kumbari, for the first defendant 

1.	ANDELMAN J: This is a decision on assessment of damages for breach of contract. On 7 May 2025 this court entered default judgement in respect of the matters pleaded in the plaintiff’s amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 27 November 2024. Judgement was entered against the defendants.

2.	Prior to the commencement of this hearing, Mr Kumbari made an application for an adjournment on the basis that he only recently received instructions and that another solicitor firm may act for the first defendant and has filed a Notice of Motion. The plaintiff opposed the adjournment. I gave an ex tempore judgement refusing the adjournment application.

3.	The plaintiff made three claims in the Statement of Claim, which is outstanding money for:
a.	Accommodation of seven rooms for 168 days at a rate of K200 per day; 
b.	 food and beverages including liquor; and
c.	cash advances for logistics.
4.	The total amount owing to the plaintiff was claimed to be K374,400.

The Evidence

5.	The plaintiff relied on his affidavit sworn on 30 May 2025. Mr Mel’s evidence was that he is the owner of the business Green Lodge which is a guest house with a restaurant. On about 26 February 2020 himself and Mr. Dome and Mr. Linge entered into an agreement where he was to provide services to them, and they would pay for the services from a bank account held in the first defendant’s company account with Bank South Pacific at Kimbe branch. He provided services to them from February 2021 to July 2021 for a period of 168 days. The services included the use of 7 rooms over 168 days at the rate of K200 per day at a total of K235,200 and food and beverages including liquor to the value of K109,200. He also provided cash advances in various amounts on various occasions for logistics and other purposes for the first defendant on request by Mr. Dome and Mr. Linge to the value of K30,000. The agreement was that all the payments would be repaid together with the bill for accommodation and food and beverages on the 12 July 2021. After the services were rendered, he raised an invoice for K374,400 payable within seven days. On 20 July 2021 he caused another follow up letter to be sent to them.

6.	In evidence was also a Certificate of Registration of Business Name of Green Lodge, registered on 29 September 2008.

Submissions
7.	The first defendant submitted that there was insufficient evidence to ground a claim that any agreement with Mr Dome and Mr Linge bound the first defendant and that there was insufficient evidence for damages to be assessed.

8.	The plaintiff submitted that the defendant cannot now seek to raise issues of liability and that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Consideration
9.	Principles that govern assessment of damages after entry of judgement on liability are well settled. In William Mel v Coleman Pakalia & Ors [2005] PGSC 36; SC790 (Mel), Los J, Jalina J and Cannings J stated at pages 13 and 14:

The plaintiff has the onus of proving his loss on the balance of probabilities. It is not sufficient to make assertions in a statement of claim and then expect the court to award what is claimed. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party alleging it, not the party who denies it. If an allegation forms an essential part of a person’s case, that person has the onus of proving the allegation. (Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212, National Court, Jalina J.)

Corroboration of a claim is usually required and the corroboration must come from an independent source. (Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335, National Court, Woods J; Kopung Brothers Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331, National Court,Lenalia J.)

The principles of proof and corroboration apply even when the defendant fails to present any evidence disputing the claim. (Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350, National Court, Woods J.)

The same principles apply after default judgment is entered and the trial is on assessment of damages – even when the trial is conducted ex parte. A person who obtains a default judgment is not entitled as of right to receive any damages. Injury or damage suffered must still be proved by credible evidence. (Yange Lagan and Others v The State (1995) N1369, National Court, Injia J.)

If the evidence and pleadings are confusing, contradictory and inherently suspicious, the plaintiff will not discharge the onus of proving his losses on the balance of probabilities. It is conceivable that such a plaintiff will be awarded nothing. (Obed Lalip and Others v Fred Sikiot and The State (1996) N1457, National Court, Injia J.)

Where default judgment is granted, for damages to be assessed on a given set of facts as pleaded in a statement of claim, the evidence must support the facts pleaded. No evidence will be allowed in support of facts that are not pleaded. (MVIT v Tabanto [1995] PNGLR 214, Supreme Court, Kapi DCJ, Hinchliffe J, Sevua J; Waima v MVIT [1993] PNGLR 370, Supreme Court, Kapi DCJ, Jalina J, Doherty J; Tabie Mathias Koim and 28 Others v The State and Others [1998] PNGLR 247, National Court, Injia J.)

The fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages. Where precise evidence is available the court expects to have it. However, where it is not, the Court must do the best it can. (Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343, National Court, Injia J.)

10.	As to re-assessing the issue of liability determined by default judgement, the Supreme Court stated that:

•	the trial judge should make a cursory inquiry so as to be satisfied that the facts and the cause of action are pleaded with sufficient clarity;
•	 if it is reasonably clear what the facts and cause of action are, liability should be regarded as proven;
•	 only if the facts or the cause of action pleaded do not make sense or would make an assessment of damages a futile exercise should the judge inquire further and revisit the issue of liability.

11.	In this case, the amended statement of claim shows that the cause of action was pleaded with sufficient clarity to establish liability. 

12.	As to the assessment of damages, the only documentary evidence before the Court is an Invoice. As to the accommodation, the Invoice does not set out the specific dates that accommodation was provided, it states ‘on various occasions from 1 February 2021 to 9 July 2021’.

13.	As to food and beverages, there is no detail at all as what food and beverage was purchased or on what date. The same as the cash advancements, there is no detail at all other than a total claim of K30,000.

14.	The letter dated 20 July 2021 requesting payment of the invoice is evidence that a request for payment was made, it does not go to prove that those services were rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants.

15.	Based on the principles set out in Mel, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his claim. There is no corroboration, there is no evidence one might expect such as ledger or a breakdown of the services provided. These are claims that can be asserted with certainty and they have been claimed as exact amounts. There is no evidence of how these exact amounts were calculated apart from the claim for the accommodation, which is K200 per room for seven rooms over 168 days. However, there are less than 168 days between 1 February 2021 to 9 July 2021.
 
16.	I do not consider that the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the accommodation is accurate or reliable.

17.	The plaintiff has failed to satisfy the onus on him to prove his loss.

Orders

18.	I make the following Order:
a.	The proceeding is dismissed.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the plaintiff: Takua Lawyers
Lawyers for the first defendant: Kumbari & Associate Lawyers