Order 4 Rule 13 of the National Court Rules 1983 is short, absolute, and easy to overlook.
(1) For the purpose of service an originating process shall be valid for two years from the date on which it is filed.
(2) The Court shall not extend the period of two years mentioned in Sub-rule (1).
(3) This Rule does not prevent the plaintiff from commencing fresh proceedings by filing another originating process.
Sub-rule (2) means what it says
Order 1 Rule 15 gives the Court a broad power to extend or abridge any time fixed by the Rules, as well after as before the time expires. Order 4 Rule 13(2) carves this one out.
The Court shall not extend it. Not for good reason, not by consent, not on terms.
Nor can Order 1 Rule 7 be used to dispense with it. A specific prohibition prevails over a general power, and sub-rule (2) is about as specific as a rule can be.
A filed but unserved writ is a claim hanging over a defendant who may not know it exists. Two years is generous; an indefinite period would be unfair.
The two years runs from the date of filing — the date the Registrar writes on the document under Order 2 Rule 19, and the date the proceeding is commenced under Order 4 Rule 12(1).
Sub-rule (3) — the way out, and its limit
Sub-rule (3) preserves the plaintiff’s right to commence fresh proceedings by filing another originating process.
This is the trap. Filing a writ stops the limitation clock for that proceeding. If the writ lapses unserved and you file a fresh one, the fresh proceeding is commenced on the new filing date.
Under the Frauds and Limitations Act 1988, many actions must be brought within six years. A plaintiff who files at five years and eleven months, then lets the writ lapse at two years, is out of time on the second attempt.
| Situation | Result |
|---|---|
| Writ served within 2 years | Proceeding continues normally |
| Writ lapses; limitation period still running | File afresh — sub-rule (3) |
| Writ lapses; limitation period expired | Claim is lost — no extension available |
| Writ lapses in a claim against the State | Also check the section 5 notice position |
Serving in time
1. Serve promptly. There is no advantage in delay. Service is governed by Order 6.
2. If the defendant cannot be found, apply early for substituted service under Order 6. Do not wait until the writ is close to lapsing — the application itself takes time.
3. For a defendant abroad, allow for the extra steps in service outside Papua New Guinea. Order 6 Divisions 2 and 3 involve leave and, sometimes, diplomatic channels — months, not days.
4. Consider concurrent writs under Order 4 Rule 15 where there are several defendants in different places. Note that a concurrent writ may only be issued before the original ceases to be valid.
A note on renewal
Some jurisdictions allow a writ to be renewed for a further period on application before it expires. The National Court Rules do not.
Sub-rule (2) forbids extension, and sub-rule (3) offers the only alternative — fresh proceedings. See whether a writ can be renewed.
Two years is generous, and the Rules treat it as sufficient. The practical consequence is that a plaintiff who has filed must actively manage service, and must diarise the expiry date from the day of filing.
Note that the two-year period governs validity for service only. A proceeding that has been served is not affected by it — but a plaintiff who then fails to move the case forward faces a different risk: dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 4 Rule 36 and Order 10.
Diarising from the day of filing
- Record the filing date the moment the Registrar seals the originating process under Order 4 Rule 12, and diarise the expiry two years later.
- Serve early. Nothing requires a plaintiff to wait, and every month of delay narrows the options.
- If the defendant cannot be found, apply for substituted service under Order 6 Rule 12 as soon as impracticability is apparent. The order must be made and carried out within the two years.
- If the defendant is abroad, allow far longer. Leave under Order 6 Rule 20, translation, and transmission through the Registrar and the Secretary for Justice under Division 3 each take time.
- Check the limitation position before relying on sub-rule (3). Fresh proceedings are commenced on the new filing date.
A plaintiff who files at five years and eleven months on a six-year cause of action, and then lets the writ lapse two years later, has lost the claim entirely: the writ cannot be extended, and a fresh writ would be filed nearly two years out of time.
That is one of the most damaging sequences in Papua New Guinea civil practice, and it is avoided simply by serving promptly.
Sources
- National Court Rules 1983 — O 1 rr 7, 15; O 2 r 19; O 4 rr 12, 13, 15, 36; O 6 rr 12, 20, Div 3
- Frauds and Limitations Act 1988
- Claims By and Against the State Act 1996 — s 5
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the National Court Rules 1983 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.