It is a short document and an easy obligation to overlook, which is why it appears on the Status Conference checklist.
Order 11 Rule 22
Each party to substantive proceedings under these rules shall, prior to the Status Conference referred to in Order 13 rule 10, file 4 copies of a list of authorities and legislation to which the party may refer at the hearing unless the list has already been filed pursuant to Order 11 rule 13(e).
Each party — appellant, respondent, cross-appellant, intervener. Not just the moving party.
Substantive proceedings — not interlocutory applications.
Prior to the Status Conference — which under Order 13 Rule 10(1) is held on the Monday of the week prior to the Court sittings.
4 copies — filed, not merely served.
Rule 13(e)
Order 11 Rule 13 requires a written submission to include (e) a list of all legislation and authorities referred to.
Rule 22 exempts a party who has already filed the list that way. So where the Court has directed written submissions under Rule 12 and the submissions include a proper list, nothing further is needed.
Where submissions have not been directed — and Rule 12 makes that a matter for the Court — the Rule 22 list is the only list, and it must be filed.
The exemption depends on the list having been filed pursuant to Rule 13(e). A submission that cites authorities in the text but carries no list at the end has not complied with Rule 13(e), and so has not attracted the Rule 22 exemption.
Getting the citations right
Order 14, governing matters dealt with on the papers, provides that case references in submissions must be to the authorised report of the case or, if not reported, to its SC or N number.
That is the right standard for any list. In practice a Papua New Guinea case is cited by its PNGLR reference where reported, and by its SC number (Supreme Court) or N number (National Court) where not.
Adding the neutral PGSC or PGNC citation and the PacLII address makes the authority findable, which is the point of the list.
McHardy v Prosec Security and Communication Ltd [2000] PGSC 31; [2000] PNGLR 279
Tsang v Credit Corporation (PNG) Ltd [1993] PGSC 18; [1993] PNGLR 112
Papua Club Inc v Nasaum Holdings Ltd [2005] PGSC 15; SC812
Kawaso Ltd v Oil Search (PNG) Ltd [2010] PGSC 34; SC1082
And for legislation: the Supreme Court Act (Chapter 37), the Supreme Court Rules 2012, and the Constitution, identifying the sections or rules relied on.
Rule 14 applies to how you use them
Order 11 Rule 14(1): references to case authorities or other material shall be cited with precision to the page and paragraph, and extracts exceeding four lines shall not be set out.
So the list identifies the authority; the submission or extract identifies the passage. A list of twenty cases with no indication of what any of them is cited for is not much use to the bench.
Where a case is relied on for a discrete proposition, a short parenthetical after the citation — naming the point, not quoting it — is worth including.
Keep it to what you will use
Rule 22 covers authorities the party may refer to, so it can be slightly wider than what is actually cited. It should not be a research bibliography.
Every authority on the list should stand for a proposition you can state in a sentence. Where three cases say the same thing, cite the best one — ordinarily the Supreme Court decision, and the most recent that states the principle fully.
Where a decision has been overruled or qualified, say so. Yakham v Merriam [1997] PGSC 32; [1998] PNGLR 555, for example, overruled Opai Kunangel v The State [1985] PNGLR 144 on the availability of leave at the hearing of an appeal.
Why four
Four copies covers a bench of three and the Court file. Where a bench of five is constituted — and section 161(2) of the Constitution requires only a minimum of three — the registry will ask for more.
The same figure appears elsewhere in Order 11: Rule 14(2) requires the appellant to lodge 4 copies of the submission unless the Registrar otherwise directs, and Rule 17(1)(b) requires 4 copies of the chronology. Rule 15(b) leaves the number of a respondent’s submissions to the Registrar’s direction.
Bring your own copies to the hearing as well. The extract of argument under Order 11 Rule 20 is handed up by counsel to each Judge constituting the court, and the list travels with it.
Why it matters
Order 13 Rule 10(2)(a) requires the Duty Judge to confirm parties’ compliance with directions issued at the Directions Hearing, and Rule 10(2)(c) allows him to refer to summary determination, matters which fail to comply with directions issued at the Directions Hearing or otherwise fail to comply with procedures prescribed by the relevant rule or statute.
Rule 22 is a procedure prescribed by a rule. A party who has not filed the list is in the second limb of Rule 10(2)(c), and at the least risks the Status Conference being adjourned and the hearing date lost.
Sources
- Supreme Court Rules 2012 — O 11 rr 12–16, 22; O 13 r 10; O 14
- Yakham v Merriam [1997] PGSC 32; [1998] PNGLR 555
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Supreme Court Rules 2012 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.