National court rejects judicial review bid by retired judge Batari

The National Court in Waigani today has refused to grant leave to retired Justice Ellenas Batari to challenge the decision of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission’s (JLSC) not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age of 72.

Justice Batari, a long-serving member of the National and Supreme Courts, turned 72 in March 2025.

Under the Organic Law on Terms and Conditions of Employment of Judges, judges may serve until 75, but require reappointment after reaching 72.

Batari applied for a three-year extension in December 2024. But the JLSC, chaired by the Minister for Justice, and Attorney General Pila Niningi resolved in March 2025 not to reappoint him.

In his ruling today, Justice Joseph Crowley stated that decisions of the JLSC made in their "deliberate judgment” are only open to judicial review on very narrow grounds.

“Though the Plaintiff complains of the unreasonableness, injustice and unfairness of the decision, he does not claim that it was made “willfully without considerations of the facts or law’ as such I do not take his grounds as being synonymous with arbitrary, capricious and bias," Justice Crowely said.

Thus, the Court found that Batari’s application did not allege or establish any of these grounds, but focused only on procedural unfairness, breaches of natural justice, and unreasonableness.

Justice Crowley ruled that these arguments did not meet the constitutional threshold for review. Basically this means, saying a decision is unfair is not the same as saying it was made on purpose without following the law or facts.

The Court noted that Batari only asked for the JLSC decision to be set aside, and did not ask the Court to order the Commission to reconsider his application.

Because of this, even if he had won the case, it would not have led to his reappointment, making the case pointless.

The Court also rejected the State’s request for an adjournment and dismissed its objections about the application being defective, finding there was enough information before the Court.

In the end, the Court refused leave for judicial review and ordered each side to pay its own costs.