Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-003333

[2011] NZHC 2090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2010-404-003333

BETWEEN  RAJENDRA PRASAD Plaintiff

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED & ORS

First Respondents

ANDTHE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Second Respondent

ANDMANUKAU DISTRICT COURT Third Respondent

Appearances: R Prasad in person the Plaintiff

G M Harrison for the Respondents

Judgment:      16 December 2011

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

16.12.11 at 4:30 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors/Counsel:

G Harrison, Barrister, Auckland –  [email protected] / [email protected]

Copy to: R Prasad, Auckland –  [email protected]

RAJENDRA PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-003333

16 December 2011

[1]      On 5 September 2011 Mr Prasad filed a document with the High Court entitled:

Affidavit of Applicant on – Annulment of Bankruptcy

[2]      The heading of the document noted the names of 20 respondents including:

(a)      [I assume]  the  seven  entities  against  whom  Mr  Prasad  pursued  a breach of copyright claim in the Manukau District Court in June 2008 (hereinafter the defendants).

(b)      Mr Harrison and Mr Parshotam, the defendants‟ counsel and solicitor

respectively.

(c)       Three persons who are officers of the Auckland High Court or the

Manukau District Court. (d)     The Attorney-General.

(e)       The Manukau District Court. (f)          The Official Assignee.

(g)      The Registrar of Companies.

(h)      The Commissioner of Inland Revenue. (i)       The Judicial Conduct Commissioner. (j)     The Commissioner of Police.

(k)      The New Zealand Law Society.

[3]      Mr Prasad‟s  affidavit referred to his having commenced his claim in the

Manukau District Court; when in the outcome of his discontinuing that claim costs

were awarded against him; that he appealed to the High Court where his appeal was [in part] successful but in the outcome of which Wylie J awarded costs of $14,931 against him.   He said he applied for costs but Wylie J “refused on grounds of discrimination on me on ethnicity, it was end of matter.   Wylie J to face Judicial Panel”.

[4]      Mr Prasad identifies what he considers are defects with the costs order of Wylie J because, as it happens on the making of an order for indemnity costs Wylie J included GST in the amount awarded.

[5]      Mr Prasad deposes that the costs order of Wylie J should have been sealed by the District Court because, he contends, that costs order was given under s 76(1)(c). He contends therefore that the bankruptcy application subsequently brought against him was invalid because the bankruptcy notice had issued on the filing of an order for costs sealed in the High Court.

[6]      His affidavit deposes that he has referred the actions of the defendants and their counsel and solicitor to the Police, as he has also a copy of the judgment of Judge Blackie of the Manukau District Court.  He contends the IRD Commissioner is accountable in connection with the fact that the costs award contains a GST component.  He has apparently referred the judgments of Blackie DCJ, Wilten DCJ, Wylie J, Bell AJ, Faire AJ, Sargisson AJ, Dobson J and Toogood J, to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.  He has also apparently referred complaints of the actions of the defendants‟ counsel and solicitor to the New Zealand Law Society.

[7]      Mr Prasad seeks an annulment of his bankruptcy from that date upon which the order for adjudication was made on 11 November 2010.  He also claims from the Attorney-General the sum of $2,641,178 which includes a sum of $517,500 for loss of income and $1.5m „indemnity for defamation‟.

[8]      Mr Prasad‟s  affidavit refers to his being represented by counsel, Mr Noel

King of Otahuhu.

[9]      When this matter was referred to me I issued a minute noting that it was not clear whether Mr Prasad had effected service of his document upon  the named respondents.

[10]     On 7 November 2011 Mr Prasad filed a document entitled:

Application  of Applicant  On  –  Review  of  both  Registrar‟s  Decision  of Sealing Cost Order in High Court Given under s 76(1)C, S 78 of District Court Act  1947  To  Set  It Aside,  Stay  of  Execution  and  Annulment  of Bankruptcy.

[11]     That document names three respondents only i.e. Indiana Publications (the first of the defendants named in the earlier filed document) the Official Assignee and the Manukau District Council.

[12]     This document expands upon the matter of the sealing of a judgment with which the annulment application was connected.

[13]     The application claims:

The action of the High Court in accepting the request for the issue of a bankruptcy notice upon an application accompanied by a costs order sealed in the High Court rather than a costs order sealed in the District Court) was

„invalid  and illegal‟,  as were the judgments of Associate Judges Bell and Faire to „enforce bankruptcy‟, and was also the judgments of Sargisson AJ, Dobson J and Toogood J not to annul the bankruptcy.

[14]     In essence Mr Prasad contends that in the outcome of the appeal in the High Court the matter ought to have reverted to the District Court for the purposes of any enforcement action.  That, Mr Prasad contends is the intent and purpose of s 76(1)(c) which provides, inter alia, that having heard an appeal the Court may make any decision or decisions it thinks should have been made and may make any further or other orders (including as to costs) that it thinks fit.

[15]     I interpolate therefore that because Mr Prasad thinks the order sealed by the High Court was invalid therefore the whole of the bankruptcy processes that ensued thereafter are likewise invalid.  He considers that until the costs order is sealed by the Manukau District Court there is not, and has never been any right to pursue the bankruptcy process against him.

[16]     Also filed on 7 November 2011 was an affidavit by Mr Prasad in support.  It too recounts the history of his dispute conducted before the District Court, his appeal before Wylie J, and the bankruptcy process that ensued thereafter.   Considerable detail has been provided, with his comment added, of his various appearances before the High Court Judges.

[17]     Towards the conclusion of his affidavit Mr Prasad has recalculated his losses

to include a sum of $2.5m for „indemnity for defamation‟.

[18]     On 10 November 2011 Mr Prasad filed two affidavits of service by which he deposed he had served those documents filed on 7 November 2011 upon the three named respondents.

[19]     On 14 November 2011 I issued a minute directing Mr Prasad‟s matters be listed for call in the chambers list on 15 December 2011.

[20]     In advance of the matter being called on 15 December Mr Prasad filed a raft of documents on 12 December 2011.  One of these was his „Case book for – Review of Registrar‟s Decision‟.  Also located amongst this raft of papers were two documents noted respectively as:

Amended Application for – Review of Three Registrars‟ Decision

Synopsis for - Review of Three Registrars‟ Decision

[21]     These papers are dated 25 November 2011.   There is no record of these documents having been filed with the High Court.   It is not clear whether they arrived independently of the documents filed on 12 December 2011, or not.

[22]     Mr Harrison who appeared at the 15 December 2011 hearing for the first respondent and on behalf of the Crown advised that he had received a copy of those documents dated 25 November 2011.  I gather from my discussions with Mr Prasad that the said documents may not have been filed formally.  Mr Prasad indicated to me that there is little change between those documents and the original application for review filed on 7 November 2011.

[23]     However I noted when comparing the original application with the amended application that instead of there being just three named respondents there were now named some 32 respondents.  Further and in addition to the original 20 respondents named in the „Affidavit of Applicant on – Annulment of Bankruptcy‟ document filed on 5 September 2011 there were now also named as respondents:

National Bank of New Zealand ANZ Banking Group Limited BNZ Banking Limited

Westpac Banking Corporation

Tower Insurance Aestron Insurance Auckland City Council

Auckland Regional Council

Metro Water Mercury Energy Telecom Corporation

Orcon Internet Corporation

New Zealand Post

AA Automobile Association

The Hearing

[24]     The matter was called in the chambers list at about 2:45pm on 15 December

2011.   Mr Prasad appeared in person, he having the previous day emailed to the Court   those   documents   which   may   collectively   be   considered   his   written submissions for the hearing. They comprised not less than 40 pages.

[25]     Mr Prasad was not represented by counsel.   The Court records show the

Court having received an email from Mr Noel King on 12 December which advised:

Mr Prasad keeps completing and filing documents and putting my name on the documents.

I am unable to contact Mr Prasad and only do have contact [with] him when he calls into my office with no appointment.

I have not filed any of the documents in this matter and have no knowledge

[of it], but can only assume Mr Prasad will attend and represent himself.

[26]     As earlier noted Mr Harrison appeared for the respondents.

[27]     I decided I would conduct a hearing upon Mr Prasad‟s applications.

[28]     In the beginning I asked Mr Prasad whether he would have paid the costs award against him if it had been for a sum exclusive of GST and if he had been provided with a copy of an order for costs issued under seal of the Manukau District Court. Mr Prasad responded initially that he would seek the advice of counsel. Then he said he would have paid it.

[29]     I then had a brief discussion with Mr Prasad regarding his history with the various Court proceedings.   He asked me for the opportunity to address the Court uninterrupted.  I indicated I would allow him to do so but for a short time only.  He then recounted events in connection with his original dispute with the defendants.

[30]     After a few minutes I advised Mr Prasad that I would not hear further from him.   I informed him I was well aware of the history of his dealings through the Courts.

[31]     I then informed Mr Prasad of what my decision would be and that my reasons would follow within a few days. These reasons follow.

[32]     Before  Wylie  J  Mr  Prasad  argued  that  the  High  Court  did  not  have jurisdiction to make an order as to costs.   In rejecting that submission Wylie J referred to s 76(1)(c) of the District Courts Act 1947.

[33]     What Mr Prasad fails to appreciate is that Wylie J did have jurisdiction to make an order as to costs and that such was an order of the High Court.  As such it was an order sealable by the High Court.  It follows that the production of the High Court sealed order for the purpose of the issue of a bankruptcy notice was proper.

[34]     In essence this is an end to the matter pursued by Mr Prasad.

[35]     Regardless  it,  like  all  those  other  matters  raised  in  Mr  Prasad‟s recent applications are just part of a further attempt to overturn his adjudication.  As Mr Harrison submits the grounds of his applications appear to be a repeat of previous applications in that he challenges the costs order of Wylie J, on which the application of adjudication is based, and the proper sealing of that order.

[36]     Also Mr Prasad is an undischarged bankrupt.  He probably has no status to bring an adjudication application.   He has previously brought such and that application was dismissed on 14 June 2011.  He applied to review that decision and that application was dismissed by Dobson J on 20 July 2011.   He then applied to recall that decision and that application was dismissed by Toogood J on 22 August

2011.

[37]     Mr Harrison submits that if Mr Prasad does indeed have status to bring another application for an annulment then that further application is an abuse of the process of the Court because it seeks to challenge matters already finally determined by the Court.  Indeed that same general submission applies to all the applications of Mr Prasad recently filed.

[38]     I agree with that submission.  His actions in filing these recent applications amount to an abuse of the Court.  Accordingly I direct that all those applications be struck out.

[39]     Rule 7.52 provides that a party who fails on an interlocutory application must not apply again without first obtaining leave of a Judge which may be granted only in special circumstances.  In this case, had I not struck the matter out, I would not have granted leave for any of those applications to be brought for the grant of leave would not be justified.

[40]     When yesterday I, at the conclusion of the hearing, advised Mr Prasad what my decision would be he immediately handed to the Registrar in Court a copy of a

typed document of some three or so pages which described itself, in effect, as his application for a review of my decision.

[41]     I informed Mr Prasad that any documents would have to be filed  at the

Registry office and I suggested he wait until my decision had issued.

Costs

[42]     I  direct  Mr  Prasad  be  liable  to  pay  costs  on  a  2B  basis  together  with disbursements upon each of the applications for annulment of bankruptcy and for a

review of the Registrar‟s decision.

Associate Judge Christiansen