BPNG loses, Puma wins
News that matter in Papua New Guinea
BPNG loses, Puma wins
PORT MORESBY: Bank of Papua New Guinea (BPNG) has lost
its feud with Puma Energy Limited. (Puma).
The National Court yesterday
(Dec 6, 2022) dismissed the Central Bank’s application to stop Puma from
halting the supply of refined petroleum products in the country.
For context, read the
following earlier reports:
https://pngcybermonitor.blogspot.com/2022/12/court-to-rule-on-bpng-puma-feud.html
(Court to rule on BPNG-Puma feud)
https://pngcybermonitor.blogspot.com/2022/12/bpng-vs-puma-over-alleged-forex-breaches.html
(BPNG vs Puma over alleged forex breaches)
The National reported the court proceedings:
BPNG fails to stop
Puma
December 7, 2022The
NationalMain Stories
THE National Court has
dismissed an application by Bank of Papua New Guinea (BPNG) seeking to stop
Puma Energy PNG Refining Ltd from halting the supply of refined petroleum
products in the country.
BPNG’s application through a notice of motion also sought to stop Puma from
limiting its supply on the basis that it had failed to make available foreign
currency through authorised foreign exchange dealers (AFEDs) in PNG, pending
the final determination of this proceeding or until further orders from the
court.
Acting Judge Gertrude Tamade ruled at Waigani yesterday that what BPNG had
attempted to do for mandatory injunction was to disadvantage Puma by compelling
it through an order to keep supplying petroleum refined products until it did
not have the capacity to do so.
“When it is in a dire situation for the need for foreign exchange that it will
succumb to the demands of BPNG and give in to its demands regarding the ongoing
issue as claimed in these proceedings,” Judge Tamade said.
“The application to refrain Puma from communicating with BPNG and issuing
publications to the public, customers and suppliers (in the hope of maintaining
integrity in the commercial market place) both in PNG and overseas is aimed at
silencing Puma to subject them, in my view, to the bank’s position.
“That is an unfair advantage and orders of the court, be it in mandatory terms,
should not be wielded by one party to the detriment of another, or to the
other’s disadvantage and BPNG’s gain.
“That is far removed from the intent of injunctive orders which is to preserve
the status quo until all issues are determined at trial or substantive hearing
proper.”
Judge Tamade said BPNG’s application to restrain Puma from holding supply of
refined petroleum product was indirect and remote from its core function which
was to manage the use of foreign currency in the country.
She also stated that as BPNG had proceeded by way of originating summons,
parties should endeavour to get the substantive matters be heard as a matter of
importance to resolve the dispute to ensure the dispute did not impact the
country, the economy, business, the mining sector and/or domestic flights.
The court further noted that parties were also at liberty to consider the use
of mediation under the alternative dispute resolution rules to settle these
issues in an amicable and timely resolution.
BPNG was also ordered to meet Puma’s legal cost. The case was adjourned to Dec
12.
BPNG’s notice of motion also sought to restrain Puma from:
- LIAISING directly or indirectly
with BPNG on its need for foreign currency but instead liaise with AFEDs
in the country;
- ISSUING threats via any mode of
communication or publication to BPNG or to the public with reference to
BPNG to force the bank to make available foreign currency through the
AFEDs in PNG in order to serve the purposes of Puma Energy and its
affiliates; and,
- ISSUING threats via any mode of communication or publication to BPNG or to the public with reference to BPNG which would impede or is targeted of restricting or preventing BPNG from performing its duties under the Central Banking Act 2000 and its regulations and any other relevant laws.
Comments
Post a Comment