Prasad v Attorney-General
[2013] NZHC 2721
•18 October 2013
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 Asher J. [Sage Group Ltd v Indiana Publications Ltd, HC Auckland, CIV 2005-
404-5424, 13 April 2006].
[23] Both the first and second causes of action have been raised previously and were finally decided. Therefore they are an abuse of process and should be struck out.
Third cause of action
[24] As Mr O’Brien observes this cause of action appears to combine claims relating to both copyright and insolvency as Mr Prasad again refers to the original copyright hearing before Judge Blackie and as well he refers to the costs order of Wylie J upon which his “unlawful” bankruptcy was based [Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd, HC Auckland, CIV 2009-404-
1521, 11 February 2010].
[25] In another decision Bell AJ accepted there was no irregularity about the costs order of Wylie J and held there was no basis upon which the order could be set aside [Re Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd ex parte Prasad HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-3333. 27 July 2010].
[26] As Mr O’Brien submits, the Court accepts that the issues raised in the third cause of action have already been raised and finally decided. The third cause of action is also an abuse of process and should be struck out.
Fourth cause of action
[27] As Mr O’Brien observes the fourth cause of action makes sensational allegations against certain individuals and charges that the judiciary and the legal profession have been conspiring against him to defeat his copyright claims and cause his insolvency.
[28] The cause of action also refers to numerous complaints that Mr Prasad has filed with the New Zealand Law Society, and his dissatisfaction with the outcome of these complaints.
[29] As Mr O’Brien observes the essence of the plaintiff’s complaints remain his copyright claims and his insolvency that arose from an adverse costs order. These issues have been raised and finally decided previously and should be struck out.
Fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action
[30] These causes of action too are explicitly concerned with Mr Prasad’s
copyright claims. They too are an abuse of process and should be struck out.
Eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action
[31] As Mr O’Brien observes these causes of action appear to be a combination of earlier causes of action as Mr Prasad pleads both issues relating to his copyright claims and issues relating to his insolvency.
[32] These causes of action also are to be struck out as an abuse of process.
Eleventh and twelfth causes of action
[33] The essence of these is Mr Prasad’s copyright claims. They are an
abuse of process and should be struck out.
Thirteenth cause of action
[34] The Court accepts Mr O’Brien’s submission that Mr Prasad’s reference to the Copyright Act 1994, the Property Law Act 2007, and the Insolvency Act 2006 appear to support a generic claim for damages, alleging that the various defendants have “ripped off plaintiff and gave wrong advice”.
[35] These claims relate to copyright and insolvency issues and concern his apparent dissatisfaction with the advice he was given at various points.
[36] Mr O’Brien is correct in his observation that it is difficult with respect to the thirteenth cause of action to discern much more from it given the sparse amount of detail pleaded.
[37] Although previous judgments do not appear to have addressed issues relating to his dissatisfaction with legal advice received, it is clear that the basis of those lie in Mr Prasad’s copyright claims.
[38] The Court is of the view those claims are an abuse of process but if not then it is clear that they are frivolous and vexatious for they plead no evidential basis for the damages sought and they disclose no basis for the claims made. The thirteenth cause of action should also be struck out.
The proceeding generally
[39] In overview whilst all or most causes of action pleaded refer to issues previously raised and decided, it is the Court’s view that as a whole the plaintiff’s proceeding is frivolous and vexatious in that it lacks “the seriousness required of matters for the Court’s determination” [Deliu v Hong [2011] NZAR 681 (HC) at [22]].
[40] The Court agrees with Mr O’Brien’s submission that the plaintiff’s pleadings are unclear, and appear to make allegations of conspiracy between the judiciary and the legal profession, and the New Zealand Law Society, and as well other allegations of criminal conduct by various defendants, without providing any evidential foundation for those claims. These have no bearing on the substantive matter of the plaintiff’s claims which relate to his copyright and insolvency matters.
[41] It is clear that Mr Prasad’s claims fall well short of the seriousness threshold that the Court requires, and are frivolous and vexatious and should be struck out in their entirety.
[4] As Mr Harrison, who appears for the fourth to twelfth defendants, has submitted, the Commentary to the High Court Rules confirm that:1
1 Andrew Beck and others McGechan on Procedure (looseleaf ed, Brookers) at [HR2.3.02(1)(a)].
If the Associate Judge’s decision is reasoned one, following a defended hearing ... the approach is essentially appellate. The starting point is the Associate Judge’s decision. The applicant has the burden of persuading the Court that the decision was wrong – that it rested on unsupportable findings of fact and/or applied wrong principles of law.
The review
[5] As best as I am able to discern Mr Prasad’s position from the voluminous papers he has filed it is that he persists in maintaining a claim to copyright and breach which have previously been determined against him and his company. He argues that in some way, following the liquidation of the company he was associated with, a judgment of the District Court ceased and “died”. He also seeks to challenge yet again the judgments and costs orders of the Court which I understand led to his bankruptcy.
[6] As an example of the argument advanced by Mr Prasad I refer to his submissions as follows:
Substantive Copyright Judgment - ...
7) Plaintiff raises these principle points in relation to a new Copyright
Judgment:
a)On Liquidation of Sage Group Limited on 02/11/06, DCJ Blackie’s Judgment collapsed and died where one of these legal steps had to be taken for the survival and continuation of that Judgment:
1. Either the Defendants kept Sage Group Limited
(Plaintiff) alive, or
2. Justice Asher or Court of Appeal had to add Mr
Prasad as the con-current Plaintiff, ...
3. There is no country on this planet of which, its
Copyright Law says it can have a dead Plaintiff.
b) Court is legally bound by the Law to re-build DCJ Blackie’s
judgment for subsequent period 02/11/06 onwards
He seeks a new copyright judgment for that period thereafter.
[7] The difficulty for Mr Prasad is the concept of finality of litigation and res judicata. If Mr Prasad is aware of such principles he simply ignores them. His
proceedings are clearly an attempt to relitigate and revisit issues which have been determined against him and his interests by a number of Judges in both the District Court and this Court at least.
[8] In brief, Mr Prasad had an interest in Sage Group Ltd. That company bought copyright proceedings against the respondent Indiana Publications Ltd and Mr Ravin Lal in the District Court. In his judgment of 29 August 2005 Judge Blackie held that the claim failed and entered judgment for the respondents with costs. Sage Group Ltd then appealed that decision to this High Court. In a judgment dated 13 April
2006 the appeal was dismissed. Mr Prasad then sought to be declared or held the first copyright owner. That matter came before Asher J on 6 November 2007. The Judge noted that Sage Group Ltd had changed its name to World Commerce NZ Limited and was in liquidation.
[9] The Judge noted that in reliance on his argument he was effectively the first copyright owner Mr Prasad sought to have copyright completed in the District Court or to be granted leave of the High Court to continue. Asher J noted that s 124 of the Copyright Act 1994 did not give a person who claims to be a copyright owner the ability to seek to appeal a decision to which that person was not a party. He rejected Mr Prasad’s application.
[10] In these proceedings Mr Prasad effectively seeks to revisit the issues which have been determined against his company and himself. In summary the findings of the Courts are:
(a) there was no breach of copyright; and
(b) secondly, that Mr Prasad had no standing.
[11] Mr Prasad’s suggestion that in some way on the liquidation of Sage Group Ltd the copyright vested in him or re-vested in him or that he had some entitlement to copyright because of the liquidation is entirely misconceived. Any rights that Sage Group Ltd had in the copyright remained in that company. On the liquidation
of that company the rights vested in the liquidator of the company, the Official
Assignee.
[12] As noted, in any event, quite apart from that, the District Court had found and this Court confirmed on appeal that there was no breach of copyright by the respondent Indiana Publications Ltd.
[13] More than that, to the extent that Mr Prasad has or may have had any personal rights in relation to this matter, they are clearly property rights which would vest in the Official Assignee. Following my direction at callover Mr Prasad says he has served copies of these proceedings on the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee has entered no appearance. The Official Assignee does not need to enter any appearance. As a matter of law any right of action Mr Prasad may personally have in relation to copyright is a property right which vested in the Official Assignee on his bankruptcy. It is clear the Official Assignee has not authorised this proceeding. Mr Prasad has no personal standing to pursue it.
[14] The suggestion that in some way Judge Blackie’s decision is “dead” is simply misconceived as a matter of law. There is no limitation applying to judgments as Mr Harrison has submitted.
[15] Insofar as they are an attempt to yet again revisit the costs orders which led to Mr Prasad’s bankruptcy, Mr Prasad’s application and proceedings are a direct abuse of process.
Result
[16] The application for review is entirely misconceived. The amended statement of claim was as the Judge held, frivolous and vexatious and not of sufficient seriousness to require the Court to respond. The application for review is dismissed.
[17] There are two other matters to address.
Costs
[18] The first is costs. I am satisfied that costs as sought by Mr Harrison are appropriate. The costs are an after incurred debt, giving the timing of the issue of these proceedings, for which Mr Prasad rather than his bankrupt estate is responsible. As noted, the proceedings are entirely unmeritorious, an abuse and are frivolous and vexatious.
[19] In my judgment costs on a 2B basis, uplifted by 50 per cent to reflect the unmeritorious nature of the proceedings, are appropriate. I calculate that on the basis of:
(a) one appearance for callover on this application before the Court; (b) the preparation of written submissions; and
(c) the appearance today (on a quarter day allowance).
In accordance with the scale at 1.95 days, applying category 2 – $1,990 and uplifting
by 50 per cent that leads to an order for costs in the respondent’s favour of
$5,820.75. Order accordingly.
Further papers
[20] The last matter is a direction to the Registrar. The Registrar is 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.
[21] Further, the Registrar is not to accept any more purported proceedings from
Mr Prasad seeking to challenge the costs order(s) which led to his subsequent bankruptcy adjudication.
Venning J
3
0
0