Prasad v Attorney-General - [2013] NZHC 2721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-004324 [2013] NZHC 2721
BETWEEN RAJENDRA PRASAD Applicant

ANDATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
First Respondent
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Second Respondent
MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Third Respondent
INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED
Fourth Respondent
RAVIN LAL Fifth Respondent
IRENE ARIN RAVN LAL Sixth Respondent
VENKAT RAM Seventh Respondent
MAHESH PARERA Eighth Respondent
CHENCHU NAGULU Ninth Respondent
BHARAT PARSHOTAM Tenth Respondent
GARY HARRISON & OTHERS Eleventh Respondents
JAGDEO LAL Twelfth Respondent

PRASAD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2013] NZHC 2721 [18 October 2013]

THOMAS & COMPANY Thirteenth Respondent

MEYRIC & ASSOCIATES Fourteenth Respondent

HESKETH HENRY LAWYERS Fifteenth Respondent

INDAR LYNCH LAWYERS Sixteenth Respondent

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Seventeenth Respondent

RUPA JODHA RAM Eighteenth Respondent

KEILIA VELIA RAM Nineteenth Respondent

ANZ BANK LIMITED Twentieth Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2013

Appearances: Applicant in Person
G Harrison for Fourth to Twelfth Respondents

Judgment: 18 October 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Harrison Law, Auckland
Copy to: Applicant
Official Assignee, Auckland

Introduction

[1] Mr Prasad, the applicant, seeks to review a decision of Associate Judge Christiansen, delivered on 11 September 2013. In that decision the Associate Judge struck out the amended statement of claim filed by Mr Prasad.

[2] The amended statement of claim is headed:

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM ON: - Judicial Review for Miscarriage of Justice, From Serious Breach, Ignorance, Misunderstanding and Misrepresentation of Copyright Act 1994, Under NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, Part II, s 27 (Right to equal Justice)

It is stated to be in:

IN THE MATTER OF: NZ Bill of rights Act 1990, Part 88 s 27, Copyright Act 1994, Passing Off, Fair Trading Act 1986, National Library Act 2003, Company’s Act 1993, Insolvency Act 2006, Property Law Act 2007, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and others

It cites as defendants to the amended claim a number of parties, including the Attorney General, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Economic Development, Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited, several lawyers, law firms, the New Zealand Law Society and the ANZ Bank Limited.

Associate Judge’s decision

[3] In striking out the claim Associate Judge Christiansen noted that that Mr Prasad was bankrupt, having been adjudicated bankrupt on 11 November 2010. The Judge however then went through and considered on their merits the various pleadings before him. I incorporate the Judge’s reasoning and refer to it below:

[20] The Court has considered and agrees with Mr O’Brien’s submissions
regarding the various causes of action pleaded.

First and second causes of action

[21] These relate to Mr Prasad’s copyright claims and the judgment of Judge Blackie in the District Court on 29 August 2005. Mr Prasad now wants copyright experts to be appointed to consider whether the publication over which he claims copyright was an original literary work.

[22] Judge Blackie had held that copyright was owned by Mr Prasad’s
company and not by him personally. In any event the Learned Judge held

there was no breach of copyright – a finding that was confirmed on appeal by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prasad v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 2721
Decision Date: 18 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Prasad v Attorney-General, the applicant, Mr. Prasad, sought to review a decision of Associate Judge Christiansen, who had struck out his amended statement of claim. The amended statement of claim was filed under various acts, including the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Copyright Act 1994, and named numerous defendants, including the Attorney General, various ministries, Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited, several lawyers, law firms, the New Zealand Law Society, and ANZ Bank Limited. The applicant argued that his claims were based on alleged breaches of copyright, misrepresentation, and conspiracy by the defendants. However, the Associate Judge found the claim to be frivolous and vexatious, and struck it out.

The key legal issues before the Court were whether the Associate Judge's decision to strike out the amended statement of claim was correct and whether the applicant's proceeding was an abuse of process. The Court found that the Associate Judge's decision was correct and that the applicant's proceeding was an abuse of process. The Court held that the applicant's claims were an attempt to relitigate and revisit issues that had already been determined against him and his interests by a number of Judges in both the District Court and the High Court. The Court found that the applicant's proceeding was frivolous and vexatious, and not of sufficient seriousness to require the Court to respond.

The Court dismissed the application for review and ordered costs on a 2B basis, uplifted by 50% to reflect the unmeritorious nature of the proceedings. The Court also directed the Registrar not to accept any more purported proceedings from Mr. Prasad seeking to challenge or revisit the judgments dealing with the issue of breach of copyright or reversion of copyright to Mr. Prasad following the liquidation of Sage Group Ltd, or the costs order(s) which led to his subsequent bankruptcy adjudication.

Orders