Kina Bank Ltd v Pruaitch [2020] PGNC 232; N8502 (18 September 2020)

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

BANK OVERDRAFT FACILITY – whether documents are in order – overdraft facility – Letter of Guarantee and Mortgage - whether there was default – if so, what were the damages suffered? Whether the sum claimed for is consistent with the terms of the agreement between the parties – Letter of Guarantee – whether it was given by the second defendant – whether second defendant may also be liable for the judgment debt – extent of liability of the first and second defendants – applicable interest rate - calculation of pre-judgement interest rate – applicable costs scale – summary of findings

Las Peles Shipping v. John Talele (2019) N7676
National Housing Commission v. Queensland Insurance (PNG) Ltd [1988-89] PNGLR 474
Wake Goi v. First Investment Finance Ltd (2017) N7059
Steven Naki v AGC (Pacific) Ltd (2005) N2782
Credit Corporation (PNG) Limited v David Nelson (2011) N4368
Rage Augerea v. Bank South Pacific Ltd (2007) SC 869
Counsel:

1. ANIS J: This matter was trialed on liability and quantum on 5 March 2020. Presentation of submissions hearing followed on 19 March 2020. I reserved my ruling to a date to be advised.

3. The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an overdraft facility agreement in or about July and August of 2014 (overdraft facility/agreement). The purpose of the arrangement was to enable the first defendant access to the overdraft facility for his personal use. The overdraft facility was formally approved on or about 11 July 2014. It had mandatory prerequisites that had to be met for the facility to be binding. The prerequisites included (i), accepting the plaintiff’s letter of offer, (ii), evidence of resolution by the board of directors of the second defendant sanctioning the borrowing, (iii), a duly executed letter of guarantee by the guarantor, and (iv) duly executed mortgage of a property described as State Lease, Allotment 7, Section 55, Boroko, City of Port Moresby, NCD, to be held as security. Upon being satisfied that the terms were met, the plaintiff approved the overdraft facility. It initially had a maximum limit of K1,500,000. On or about 7 August 2014, the maximum amount was reduced by agreement to a maximum sum of K1,240,000. Interest was calculated at 11.2% per annum which was variable at the plaintiff’s discretion, and interest was charged or made payable on the last day of each month. The overdraft facility was also reviewable from time to time by the plaintiff. On 14 August 2014, the first defendant commenced utilizing the facility.

4. In 2018, the plaintiff alleged that the overdraft facility went into arears by K1,316,069.51. So, on 14 June 2018, it issued a notice of demand (Notice of Demand) to the defendants. It claimed that no payment was received after that. So, on 17 July 2018, the plaintiff issued a notice of default (Notice of Default) to the defendants for their alleged failure to comply with the Notice of Demand. The defendants did not respond favorably to the demands.

5. So, on 29 August 2018, the plaintiff filed this proceeding by way of a writ of summons and statement of claim (writ). The writ was subsequently amended on 22 October 2019. The defendants filed an amended defence on 8 November 2019.

6. The plaintiff tendered a total of 5 affidavits. The first defendant did not give or file any evidence to defend himself. As for the second defendant, it filed 1 affidavit on 20 June 2019, which is marked as Exhibit D1. The affidavit belongs to one Danny Chiu Chuan Uong (Mr Uong). Mr Uong gives evidence as a director of the second defendant. In his affidavit, he responds to the Letter of Guarantee which he executed on or about 14 July 2014 (the Letter of Guarantee). He does not deny signing it but states that he signed it without seeking independent legal advice. He also refers to the Mortgage which he also signed on 14 July 2014 (the Mortgage) and says the same thing; that he did not receive independent legal advice before he signed. He said after he signed the documents, he did not hear anything back from the plaintiff until the time when he was served with the Notice of Demand. The second defendant’s next argument was presented by counsel. Counsel submits that the Letter of Guarantee was given in person by Mr Uong and not by the second defendant. Counsel submits that what this means is that the Mr Uong is the guarantor and not the second defendant. Counsel also submits that the Mortgage was not part and parcel of the overdraft facility that had been agreed upon. Consequently, counsel submits that the only security which the plaintiff could possibly enforce is the personal guarantee given by Mr Uong, but Mr Uong, counsel submits, is not a party to the proceeding. On these bases, counsel submits that the second defendant should not be held liable for the first defendant’s debt and that any enforcement relief that is sought against its property described as State Lease, Allotment 7, Section 55, Boroko, City of Port Moresby, NCD (the Property) should also be refused.

7. The reason why I have summarized the defendants’ evidence at this juncture is to firstly point out the fact that the first defendant does not deny liability; that he did not dispute liability at the trial. This is despite what had been agreed to by the parties in the Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts and Legal Issues which was filed on 13 December 2019. The second reason is to summarise the main arguments put forward by the second defendant in its denial of liability.

8. These said, I note that this Court must also to be satisfied, that is, of whether the plaintiff has provided evidence on the balance of probabilities, to establish or verify its claim as it is pleaded in the writ. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish its claim to the satisfaction of the Court in a trial proper. See case: Las Peles Shipping v. John Talele (2019) N7676.

10. As stated, the plaintiff tendered 5 affidavits. They were sworn by 2 of its witnesses. The first witness was Michael Van Dorssen. He is the Chief Risk Officer of the plaintiff. Mr Van Dorssen was the only witness who was cross-examined. He deposes to 4 of the 5 affidavits that were tendered and marked as exhibits P2, P3, P4 and P5. The next witness for the plaintiff who had his evidence tendered without cross-examination was Kisen Karuwel. His affidavit was marked Exhibit P1. I set them out herein:

Exhibit No.	Name of Deponent	Date filed
P1	Kisen Karuwel	6 February 2019
P2	Michael Van Dorssen	6 February 2019
P3	Michael Van Dorssen	5 July 2019
P4	Michael Van Dorssen	25 July 2019
P5	Michael Van Dorssen	25 October 2019

11. The overdraft facility is marked as annexure C to Exhibit P2 and annexure A to Exhibit P4. It was signed between the plaintiff, as it was then known as Maybank (PNG) Ltd, and the first defendant, Mr Patrick Pruaitch. Evidence of the transition or the change of name of the plaintiff from Maybank (PNG) Ltd to its current name, is also adduced in the evidence of Mr Van Dorssen, that is, in Exhibits P2 and P3. I need not discuss them in detail. Although the issue was raised by the defendants in the pleadings, they did not contest it at the trial by producing any evidence or submissions to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence. In any event, I am satisfied, based on the evidence that have been adduced by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is the same person with legal capacity in regard to this deal which it has had with the defendants under its previous name.

12. The original overdraft facility was approved on 11 July 2014 for a maximum limit of K1,500,000. On 7 August 2014 or shortly after, the maximum limit was reduced by agreement of the parties, to K1,240,000. The terms and conditions of the overdraft facility remained the same. I summarize them above in the background of this judgment. But for this purpose, evidence of the reduction of the overdraft maximum limit from K1,500,000 to K1,240,000, may be seen at annexure D to Exhibit P2. The document is a letter by the plaintiff dated 7 August 2014. It was addressed to the first defendant. The bottom of the letter reveals evidence of acknowledgment of receipt by the first defendant where he signs off and hand-writes the date 15 September 2014.

13. Evidence of the overdraft facility draw-down may be seen at Exhibit P3. Of relevance is annexure E which shows the first defendant’s bank statement at the material time. At page 2 of the bank statement, it shows when the draw down had commenced, which was on 14 August 2014. Before the use of the overdraft facility, the first defendant had a credit balance of K2,894.30 in his account, that is, as of 14 August 2014. On the same day, the first defendant withdrew K4,880.12. By so doing, K2,894.30 of that constituted monies that was drawn from his own savings. The balance of the withdrawn sum, namely, K1,985.82, constituted the deduction which was subtracted from the K1,240,000 overdraft facility that he had with the plaintiff. At the start of page 3 of annexure E is the recording of the second withdrawal by the first defendant. He withdrew a sun of K4,025. That sum wholly came from the overdraft facility. Given that his first deduction from the overdraft facility was K1,985.82, if we add that to his subsequent withdrawn sum of K4,025, the increased debit balance of the overdraft facility would be K6,010.82. This sum is consistent with the calculations as revealed in the first defendant’s bank statement. And so began the increases in the overdraft debts of the first defendant. I note that despite various repayments or replenishments made by the first defendant to the facility, the first defendant, as revealed in his overdraft account, continued to withdraw up to as far as 27 January 2017. On that day, he withdrew K930. His overdraft debt balance on that day was K1,236,471.21. The K1,236,471.21 consisted of the amount that he had used from the overdraft facility which he had not replenished. The first defendant did not make further withdrawals after that. Pages 6 to 12 of his bank statement, under annexure E to Exhibit P3, shows the accumulation of bank charges and interests on the overdraft account. The charges were added onto the overdraft debt and as a result, it caused the overdraft debt to surpass its maximum amount of K1,240,000, that is, on or about 30 June 2017. On that day, a calculated interest of K7,109.70 was determined and added onto to the outstanding overdraft sum of K1,236,471.21. The new outstanding overdraft balance was K1,244,630.91 which surpassed the K1,240,000 maximum limit. Interest and charges continued to apply to the overdraft facility thereafter and up to 31 May 2018 where the first defendant’s overdraft outstanding balance stood at K1,316,069.51. On 30 June 2018, the overdraft outstanding debt balance stood at K1,329,167,23. These 2 figures were quoted in the Notice of Demand and Notice of Default, respectively.

14. Counsel for the defendants tends to have, in my view, this misconceived view that the first defendant defaulted by less than K4,000 as at 27 January 2017 when the overdraft amount stood at K1,236,471.21. He submits that the first defendant was, at the material time, still within or less than the maximum sum of K1,240,000. He, in my view, erroneously subtracted K1,240,000 from K1,236,471.21 to get a balance of K3,528.79. And counsel was arguing, in my view, under the misconceived view that the default should therefore have been K3,528.79 which should have been the sum that should have been included in the Letter of Demand and the Notice of Default and not or instead of K1,316,069.51 and K1,329,167.23 as were respectively stated in the 2 notices. The defendants also submit, again under a misconceived view, that the defaulted sums included interest and other charges that were charged and wrongly added onto the overdraft facility after 27 January 2017, which saw the overdraft sum to increase beyond the maximum limit of K1,240,000. My view, as reflected above, is this. Evidence adduced shows that the plaintiff had used up or had withdrawn his overdraft facility of K1,240,000 by 30 June 2017. Accumulation of interest and commitment fee charges were added as per the terms of the overdraft facility. With respect, the defendants and their counsel seem to have forgotten the fundamental concept of why banks lend money out to their clients, which is, to make profits. And they do that by charging interest and various fees for their services. In this case, interest rates and other charges such as commitment fees, are expressly stated at pages 1 and 2 of the overdraft facility. Page 1 of the agreement reads, and I quote in part, Currently our ILR is 11.20% p.a. The above interest rate may be varied at any time at the Bank’s discretion. Over to page 2, under the sub-heading OVERDRAFT, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), read:

Additional interest of 1% p.a. or such higher rate as shall be imposed by the Bank at any time and from time to time above the prescribed rate of Overdraft facility shall be charged on any late payment (subject to a minimum of Kina Five (K5.00) from the date the amount becomes overdue to the date of actual payment (as well after as before judgment).

16. So in summary, I find the understanding of the defendants or their counsel, of the default and the facts that have led to the act of default of the overdraft facility by the first defendant, misconceived and wrong.

17. There is also evidence of admission. The first was by counsel for the defendants during his presentation of submission at the hearing. Counsel said the first defendant did not dispute the overdraft facility and that the main issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim the full liquidated sum as sought in the writ, that is, K1,329,167.23, or whether it should be entitled to a sum that should be much lesser than that.

18. The second admission may be seen from an evidence adduced by the plaintiff, that is, at annexure J to Exhibit P2. The annexure is a letter dated 2 August 2018 by the first defendant to the plaintiff. It was sent after the plaintiff had issued the Notice of Demand and Notice of Default. Paragraph 1 reads, and I quote in part:

I acknowledge receipt of your various debt notice and wish to advise you that I am attempting to have this payment settled in due course. Mean time I have appointed Mr. Alfred Kimbu or Kimbu and Associates Lawyers to act on my behalf to assist in settling this outstanding debt.

19. So, in summary, I will say this. The overdraft facility is not disputed and is binding upon the parties to it. There is overwhelming evidence of failure by the first defendant to comply with the terms of the overdraft facility. These have been established by the plaintiff in its evidence before this Court. Based on the first defendant’s failure to replenish the overdraft sum, the Notice of Demand and the Notice of Default were issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. The overdraft facility remains to be settled in full plus interest and related charges that had been imposed and added by the plaintiff.

21. I am of the view that the plaintiff has established its case against the first defendant on the balance of probabilities, and that the first defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the debt as claimed, which is in the sum of K1,329,167.23.

22. The plaintiff refers to evidence of the directors’ resolution of the second defendant, and argues that all the documents that have been executed by Mr Uong in relation to the overdraft facility, including the Letter of Guarantee, were executed for and on behalf of the second defendant. It submits that they were not executed by Mr Uong in his personal capacity.

23. The second defendant denies this. Counsel argues that the Letter of Guarantee was executed by Mr Uong in his personal capacity as expressly stated therein; that he did not execute or give guarantee to the overdraft facility on behalf of the second defendant. As such, he submits that the second defendant cannot be held liable for the debts that have been incurred by first defendant for the use of the overdraft facility.

24. The Letter of Guarantee is adduced in evidence. It is attached as annexure E1 to Exhibit P2. And the directors’ resolution of the second defendant is marked as annexure B1 to Exhibit P5. I note that the resolution specifically or expressly authorizes the company (i.e., the second defendant) to mortgage its Property to the plaintiff as security for the overdraft facility. The last paragraph of the resolution requires consideration as it is being relied upon by the plaintiff to make out its case on the issue. It reads, “RESOLVED THAT authority be and is hereby given for any of the directors of the company to execute all documents pertaining to the above including any amendments as may be agreed upon from time to time with the Bank.” The phrase “all documents pertaining to the above”, means, in my view, the mortgage and documents concerning or relating only to the mortgage of the company’s Property, as stated in the whole resolution. The resolution expressly identifies the overdraft facility, and it expressly states that the security for the said overdraft shall come from the second defendant’s Property. The resolution does not state anywhere therein that the second defendant shall also give an unlimited undertaking such as the Letter of Guarantee, to the plaintiff for the said overdraft facility. And when I consider the Letter of Guarantee, I note that it is express. It expressly names Mr Uong as the guarantor. He is named at page 1 of the guarantee as the person making it to the plaintiff. And Mr Uong signs off at page 7 therein, as the Guarantor, which in my view means him personally. The second defendant is a legal person, but it was not named therein. Had it been the intention of the parties that the second defendant should be a guarantor, it would or should have been reflected in (i) the second defendant’s board resolution and (ii) the Letter of Guarantee, with its name put down, or a separate guarantee could have been prepared and signed under its name. This was not the case here.

25. I also refer to the overdraft facility. At page 7, clause 19, under the sub-heading GUARANTEE, it reads, Notwithstanding anything herein contained, the fact that one or more of the above named guarantors may not have executed a guarantee in form and substance acceptable to the Bank, the guarantee when executed shall be binding and enforceable against each guarantor who executes the same. When I interpret or consider that with the Letter of Guarantee and resolution passed by the directors of the second defendant, the only named guarantor is Mr Uong who is expressly named in person in the Letter of Guarantee, not the second defendant. If for example, Mr Uong executes the Letter of Guarantee as the director of the second defendant or on its behalf, his action would bind the second defendant as the guarantor. In this case, the Letter of Guarantee does not state that Mr Uong was signing as a director or on behalf of the second defendant. There is no company seal affixed to it as well. With that I remind myself of the meaning of a guarantee in this type of situation. Bredmeyer J in National Housing Commission v. Queensland Insurance (PNG) Ltd [1988-89] PNGLR 474, held, and I quote in part, A contract of guarantee is a contract by which the guarantor agrees to be answerable for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person whose primary liability to a third person exists or is contemplated. I adopt this as my own herein. In this case, the guarantor to the overdraft facility that was signed between the plaintiff and the first defendant, is Mr Uong.

26. I therefore uphold the second defendant’s submission. The Letter of Guarantee, in my view, was given by Mr Uong personally and not by him on behalf of the second defendant. The plaintiff may be at liberty to enforce its rights against Mr Uong personally under the Letter of Guarantee but not against the second defendant in the manner as pleaded in the writ.

27. The Mortgage is marked as annexure G to Exhibit P2. It was registered to the Title of the Property with registration number S. 68295, on 13 August 2014. Evidence of record of the registration is at annexure F to Exhibit P2. The Property is owned by the second defendant. A copy of the Title is attached as annexure B to Exhibit P2. I see no reason to doubt these evidence.

28. The second defendant did not adduce any evidence to show real contest to the Mortgage over the Property from 2014 to 2018, that is, not until recently on 21 June 2019 when Mr Uong filed his affidavit which is marked as Exhibit D1. In brief, Mr Uong seems to assert ignorance or lack of legal knowledge concerning the Letter of Guarantee and the Mortgage. In response, the plaintiff through Mr Van Dorssen contests Mr Uong’s evidence by his affidavit which is marked as Exhibit P3. In summary and on point, the plaintiff says that the defendants including Mr Uong, were well-aware of the overdraft facility arrangement. In regard to the claim of want of legal knowledge or understanding, the plaintiff submits that it was incumbent upon the defendants to obtain independent legal advice which was part of the requirements in the documents that had been executed between the plaintiff and the defendants.

29. I have considered both affidavits and the evidence in totality. I also note the submissions of the parties. My view is this. There is ample evidence adduced by the plaintiff which shows that Mr Uong had, at the material time, duly acted for the second defendant, that is, in providing the mortgaged property as security for the overdraft facility, in favour of the plaintiff. Board approval had been given for the said transaction by the second defendant. I have already covered that above in my judgment. I must say that I do not find the evidence of Mr Uong convincing, and so I give little or no weight to it. Evidence shows that Mr Uong was a major player or person at the material time who had participated personally as well as on behalf of the second defendant, in facilitating the overdraft facility for the benefit of the first defendant. I will also say this. The signing of the overdraft facility, including the signing and registration of the Mortgage and the Property, occurred in July and August of 2014. Mr Uong’s evidence and claims were recently made on 21 June 2019, about 5 years later, that is, where he claims that he did not know or understood what he had signed back then. He was required to obtain independent legal advice before he signed the Mortgage and the Letter of Guarantee. If he or the second defendant had not obtained independent legal advice or opinion, that was or would have been, in my view, a matter for them. In this case, Mr Uong did not refuse but went ahead and signed the Mortgage on behalf of the second defendant. There is also evidence of the resolution which had been passed by the second defendant which had allowed its Property to be mortgaged to the plaintiff as security for the overdraft facility. And there is evidence of the duly executed Mortgage which is dated 14 July 2014. The Mortgage reveals that Mr Uong countersigned and affixed the company seal of the second defendant to it.

30. I therefore dismiss the second defendant’s contentions concerning the Mortgage. I find that the Mortgage was duly executed and is binding upon the parties to it. I find that the plaintiff is therefore entitled to enforce or foreclose on the Property under the terms and conditions of the Mortgage and the overdraft facility. See cases: Wake Goi v. First Investment Finance Ltd (2017) N7059, Steven Naki v AGC (Pacific) Ltd (2005) N2782, Credit Corporation (PNG) Limited v David Nelson (2011) N4368 and Rage Augerea v. Bank South Pacific Ltd (2007) SC 869.

32. I am inclined to and will grant judgment in the liquidated sum of K1,329,167.23 in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant. I explain above in my judgment the evidence and the sums that were owed by the first defendant to the plaintiff under the overdraft facility. Submission on point by counsel for the defendants, as stated, fails to consider the fact that the K1,329,167.23 claimed by the plaintiff, represents debited funds from the K1,240,000 that were used and not replenished by the first defendant, under the overdraft facility. Additional charges added by the plaintiff which were included in the K1,329,167.23 debt, were done as per the terms of the overdraft facility.

33. The second defendant, based on my findings, are not directly liable for the debt but are liable under the Mortgage. I find that due notices had been issued by the plaintiff to the second defendant. The first was the Notice of Demand dated 14 June 2018 which was sent to the first and second defendants on 15 June 2018, and the second was the Notice of Default dated 17 July 2018 which was also sent to them on 18 July 2018.

34. I note that the 2 notices issued were issued pursuant s. 67 and s. 68 of the Land Registration Act Chapter No. 191 (LR Act). They state, and I quote:

(a) for the period of one month in payment of any secured money the creditor may give to the debtor written notice to pay the money then due or owing; or

(b) in the observance of a covenant binding on the debtor by virtue of a provision expressed or implied in a mortgage or charge the creditor may give to the debtor written notice to observe the covenant.

(c) by leaving the notice at the usual or last-known address in the country of the debtor or other person claiming to be entitled to the secured land.

(a) in Section 67(1)(a), continues for a further month from the date of the notice referred to in that subsection; or

(b) in Section 67(1)(b), continues for a month from the date of the notice referred to in that subsection,

the creditor may sell the land the subject of the mortgage or charge or a part of that land.

(2) For the purpose of effecting a sale under this section the creditor may execute any document.

(b) by public auction or by private contract or partly by public auction and partly by private contract.

(4) The creditor may sell the land subject to any conditions of sale which he thinks fit.

(5) On a sale under this section the creditor may buy in and resell without being liable for loss occasioned by that purchase or resale.

(6) The purchase money arising from a sale under this section shall be applied—

(b) secondly, to the extent that money remains after the payment specified in Paragraph (a)—in payment of a registered mortgage or charge taking precedence to the mortgage or charge to which the power of sale was exercised and to which the sale was not subject; and

(c) thirdly, to the extent that money remains after the payment specified in Paragraph (b)—in payment of the creditor; and

(d) fourthly, to the extent that money remains after the payment specified in Paragraph (c)—in payment in order of priority, of registered mortgages or charges that are subsequent to the mortgage or charge in relation to which the power of sale was exercised; and

(e) finally, to the extent that money remains after the payment specified in Paragraph (d)—in payment to the debtor.

35. I am satisfied that the requirements under s. 67 and s. 68 of the LR Act have been met.

36. The plaintiff seeks interest at the rate of 11.2% per annum on the pre-judgment sum, and at the same rate for post judgment, until payment. I note that the defendants did not put up a serious challenge on this matter.

37. The rate of interest that is pleaded in the writ is derived from the overdraft agreement. It was agreed therein that interest would be charged at the rate of 11.2% per annum, subject to variations that may occur from time to time. I do not have any evidence to say that the interest rate has been varied for this purpose. As such, I will apply the interest rate as per the agreement, that is, at 11.2% per annum from the date of filing the writ which was filed on 29 August 2018, to the date of judgment which is 18 September 2020. I will also order interest to be calculated at the same rate on the judgment sum which shall accrue after 30 days from 18 September 2020.

38. The liquidated judgment sum in this case is K1,329,167.23. 11.2% of K1,329,167.23 equals K148,866.73. If we divide K148,866.73 by 365 days, the interest rate per day would be K407.85. The writ was filed on 29 August 2018. If I calculate the number of days from that date to 18 September 2020, it will be 2 years and 20 days. So I multiply K148,866.73 by 2, which is equals to K297,733.46. I multiply the 20 days by the daily rate of K407.85 which equals K8,157. And I add K297,733.46 with K8,157, to get K305,890.46.

39. The total accrued interest calculated at the rate of 11.2% per annum over the sum of K1,329,167.23 from 29 August 2018 to 18 September 2020, is K305,890.46. I add K305,890.46 to the sum K1,329,167.23, to arrive at the judgment sum of K1,635,057.69.

40. The plaintiff is seeking costs as per the terms of the overdraft facility, that is, on a solicitor/client basis. Was that also agreed to in the overdraft facility? I refer to clauses 13 and 14 of the overdraft facility. I note that clause 13 is an indemnity clause, and it covers legal cost of this nature to be bourn by the first defendant on a solicitor/client basis.

41. I will order cost against the first defendant applying the solicitor/client cost scale to be taxed if not agreed.

42. As for the second defendant, I note that clause 27(c) of the Mortgage is relevant. It reads, and I quote in part, Each of the Debtor and Mortgagor agree to pay reimburse and indemnify the Bank on demand in respect of:-......including in each case, without limitation, legal costs and expenses on a full indemnity basis or lawyer and own client basis, whichever is higher. I will therefore award cost against the second defendant on an indemnity basis which may be taxed if not agreed.

43. In summary, I propose to sign judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant for a liquidated sum of K1,329,167.23. I will also add the pre-judgment accrued interest sum, which is K305,890.46, onto the liquidated sum. The final judgment sum (inclusive of pre-judgment interest) I award in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant is K1,635,057.69 (Judgement Sum).

44. I will award interest to accrue on the Judgment Sum of K1,635,057.69 at the rate of 11.2% per annum, which shall commence accruals after the 30^th day from the date of this order and shall continue to accrue to the date when the Judgment Sum is paid in full together with any accrued post judgment interest.

45. I will grant leave to the plaintiff to issue a writ of possession on the Property. I will also grant other consequential orders that shall follow as sought in the writ with variations.

The Court orders accordingly.
________________________________________________________________

National Court of Papua New Guinea

Kina Bank Ltd v Pruaitch [2020] PGNC 232; N8502 (18 September 2020)