Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 47/2014
[2014] NZSC 78

BETWEEN	RAJENDRA PRASAD Applicant
AND	INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED Respondent

SC 48/2014
BETWEEN	RAJENDRA PRASAD Applicant
AND	INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person
Judgment:	20 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This judgment deals with applications by Mr Prasad to appeal against one decision of the High Court and two decisions of the Court of Appeal.
First, he seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Venning J in the High Court which upheld a judgment of an Associate Judge striking out as an abuse of process a claim by Mr Prasad seeking to re-litigate issues already determined by the courts.[1] Venning J also directed the Registrar not to accept for filing any further purported proceedings from the applicant relating to the issues of breach of copyright or costs that had led to the applicant’s bankruptcy.
[1]Prasad v Attorney-General [2013] NZHC 2721.
Mr Prasad also applies for leave to appeal against two decisions of Wild J in the Court of Appeal directing the Registrar not to accept documents that the applicant had endeavoured to file. In both decisions, Wild J ordered that the Registrar not accept any further papers from the applicant without prior leave of a Judge.
The background to these matters is the applicant’s desire to challenge a District Court judgment in copyright litigation which was adverse to him, the propriety of subsequent costs orders in that proceeding, and the appellate courts’ eventual refusal to entertain the applicant’s attempts to re-litigate final judgments on these matters. He also seeks to challenge earlier decisions of this Court refusing leave to appeal against the original judgments entered against him.[2]
[2]Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZSC 60; and Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZSC 43.
None of the applications raises a question of general or public importance or other ground making it necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal. In particular, although the outcome of the copyright and bankruptcy proceedings has been frustrating and burdensome for the applicant, there is no indication that a substantial miscarriage of justice will occur if the appeal is not heard.
As well, in relation to the application against the judgment of Venning J, there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Accordingly each of the applications for leave to appeal is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with two applications for leave to appeal by Rajendra Prasad against judgments from the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The applications sought to challenge the dismissal of claims and directions preventing further litigation on specific matters. The first application contested a decision by Venning J in the High Court, which upheld a prior judgment of an Associate Judge that dismissed Prasad's claim as an abuse of process, given the issues had already been determined by the courts. Venning J also directed that no further proceedings regarding breach of copyright or costs leading to Prasad's bankruptcy would be accepted. The second application challenged two decisions by Wild J in the Court of Appeal, which similarly directed the Registrar not to accept any further documents from Prasad without prior leave from a Judge.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applications met the necessary criteria for leave to appeal. The Court needed to determine if the proposed appeals raised questions of general or public importance or if they were necessary in the interests of justice to prevent a substantial miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the Court examined if there were exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court found that none of the applications raised issues of general or public importance or other grounds making it necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeals. Specifically, the Court noted that while the outcome of the proceedings had been burdensome for Prasad, there was no indication of a substantial miscarriage of justice if the appeals were not heard. Furthermore, in relation to the application against Venning J’s judgment, the Court identified no exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established