Pineapple building referred to ADR

 By ILA PAILAEA

A DISPUTE between a company tasked with the job of design and reconstructing the old Marea House (Pineapple Building) at Waigani and the state has now been referred to the alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) for mediation.

Infratech Management Consultants Ltd (Infratech) alleged that it was contracted for the job and was named in the O.S. proceedings as the second defendants, to work on the “Pineapple building” according to an NEC decision made in August 2008.

However, the actions of first defendant named as Bryan Kimmins, chairman of Central Supply and Tenders Board, through advertising a public tender, seemed to contradict the NEC decision and a breach of contract.

The defendants had asked the court to remove the restraining order against them from dealing with the tender notice. 

The court refused to grant this relief because the restraining order expired at the close of business on July 24, 2009.

The defendant’s amended notice of motion also asked the court to set aside the consent orders made on Oct 23, 2009.

The reasons given included misrepresentations made at the settlement negotiations, crucial information were not made known to the court and it is in the public interest and the interest of PNG that the consent order be set aside. 

The defendants asked the court to do this because of its inherent power under s.155 (4) of the Constitution. 

   The exercise of this power applies in two situations, where there are errors on the face of the court’s record and where there is a procedural irregularities associated with the consent order being obtained.

Judge Derek Hartshorn ruled that the defendants had failed to properly show an error on the court’s records.

   Hartshorn ruled that he found no merit on the ground of misrepresentation as the consent orders did refer to the other proceeding (WS 1467/07) between the same parties.