Prasad v Indiana Publications Ltd - [2008] NZCA 70

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA652/07
[2008] NZCA 70
BETWEENRAJENDRA PRASAD

Applicant

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS LTD

First Respondent
ANDRAVIN LAL

Second Respondent

Hearing:17 March 2008

Court:William Young P, Ellen France and Baragwanath JJ
Counsel:Applicant in Person

G M Harrison for Respondents

Judgment:19 March 2008 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
BMr Prasad is to pay costs of $1,500 to the respondents plus usual disbursements.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Ellen France J)
Introduction
[1]       This is an application under s 67 of the Judicature Act 1908 for leave to appeal to this Court against a judgment of Asher J delivered on 13 April 2006: HC AK CIV 2005-404-5424. Mr Prasad sought leave to appeal from the High Court, but that was refused by Asher J on 6 November 2007. The application for leave is opposed.
Background
[2]       Mr Prasad had an interest in a company called Sage Group Ltd (now World Commerce NZ Limited (in liq)). The company brought copyright proceedings against the respondents, Indiana Publications Ltd and Ravin Lal, in the District Court at Manukau in relation to its information and business directory. In a judgment delivered on 29 August 2005, Judge Blackie held that the claim failed and entered judgment for the respondents with costs: DC MAN CIV 2003-092-4034.
[3]       Sage Group appealed to the High Court. Asher J, in dismissing the appeal, concluded that the appellant had not shown any error in fact or in law on the part of the District Court Judge.
[4]       Mr Prasad then filed an application on his own behalf in the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court. It appears that the application was some 17 months out of time. The application was declined on the basis that Mr Prasad was not a party to the proceedings and had no ability to appear or apply for an order in the proceedings.
Does Mr Prasad have a right of appeal?
[5]       The right of appeal in the present case is limited to “a party” by s 67 of the Judicature Act. Section 67(1) relevantly provides that the decision of the High Court on appeal from an inferior court is final unless “a party”, on application, obtains leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[6]       The term “party” is not defined in the Judicature Act but it is defined in r 3 of the High Court Rules as meaning:
[A]ny person who is a plaintiff or defendant in any proceeding; and includes any person added to the proceeding:

[7] It appears that Mr Prasad was, initially, the sole plaintiff when the proceedings were commenced in the District Court (they were apparently transferred to that Court from the Disputes Tribunal). However, the record indicates that on 20 July 2004, Judge Simpson made an order amending the name of the plaintiff to Sage Group and Sage Group has been the sole plaintiff since then. On this analysis, Mr…

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 Indiana Publications Ltd 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: [2008] NZCA 70
Decision Date: 19 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rajendra Prasad applied to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand for leave to appeal a decision of the High Court. The High Court had dismissed an appeal by Sage Group Ltd, in which Mr. Prasad had an interest, against a District Court decision that Sage Group's copyright claim against Indiana Publications Ltd and Ravin Lal had failed. Mr. Prasad argued that the District Court should have proceeded in his name as well as that of Sage Group, and that he had status to make the application as the "first" copyright owner. The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Prasad was not a party to the proceedings and had no ability to appear or apply for an order in the proceedings. The Court also rejected Mr. Prasad's argument that he had status to make the present application as the "first" copyright owner. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal for want of jurisdiction, and ordered Mr. Prasad to pay costs of $1,500 to the respondents plus usual disbursements.

Orders