Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 34/2010
SC 69/2010
[2012] NZSC 97

BETWEEN RAJENDRA PRASAD
Applicant

AND INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED & ORS
Respondents

Court: McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
G M Harrison for Respondents

Judgment: 14 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for recall are dismissed.

Mr Prasad applies for the recall of the following judgments of this Court:
(a)Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited & Ors [2010] NZSC 60; [1] and
(b)Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited & Ors [2012] NZSC 93.[2]
[1] By application dated 5 November 2012.
[2] By application dated 9 November 2012.
The grounds for recall are that these judgments did not address the question of who owned the copyright and, in the case of the 2012 judgment, did not address the correct process for setting costs.
The reason that this Court did not address these questions is because leave to appeal was refused. Further, leave was refused on the basis that the questions had been definitively determined in other proceedings.[3]
[3]Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited & Ors [2010] NZSC 60 at [2] and Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited& Ors [2012] NZSC 93 at [4] and [5].
The applications for recall are wholly without merit and are declined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rajendra Prasad, sought the recall of two Supreme Court judgments concerning his dispute with Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited and others. The initial application, dated 5 November 2012, sought to recall a 2010 judgment, while the second application, dated 9 November 2012, targeted a 2012 judgment. Prasad argued that these judgments failed to address critical questions about copyright ownership and the appropriate process for setting costs. The court, comprising McGrath, William Young, and Glazebrook JJ, was tasked with determining the merits of these applications for recall.

The court examined whether the judgments indeed omitted to address the ownership of copyright and the correct process for setting costs, as claimed by Prasad. The court found that the reasons for not addressing these issues were explicitly stated in the refusal of leave to appeal, which noted that the questions had already been conclusively determined in prior proceedings. The court underscored that the refusal of leave to appeal was based on the premise that the issues had been definitively resolved, thereby obviating the need for the Supreme Court to revisit them.

The Supreme Court held that the applications for recall were without merit. The court dismissed the applications, confirming that the judgments were correctly decided under the circumstances, and that the issues raised by Prasad had already been adequately addressed in the legal process. Consequently, the court denied the applications for recall, affirming the integrity of the prior judgments.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the recall applications. The court's decision was clear and final, upholding the integrity of the judgments that had already been issued.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established