Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 34/2010
[2010] NZSC 60
BETWEENRAJENDRA PRASAD

Applicant

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED

First Respondent
ANDARIN LAL

Second Respondent
ANDVENKAT RAM

Third Respondent
ANDMAHESH PARERA

Fourth Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and Wilson JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

G M Harrison for Respondents

Judgment:28 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BThe applicant is ordered to pay to the respondents jointly costs of $2,500.

REASONS
[1]        The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal striking out, as an abuse of process, his claim of breach of copyright.[1]
[1]Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd v Lal & Ors [2010] NZCA 111 per Arnold, Panckhurst and Harrison JJ.
[2]        Previous proceedings alleging a similar breach were commenced by the applicant. At his request, the applicant’s company was substituted for him as plaintiff. The company unsuccessfully attempted to prove in the District Court that its copyright had been breached. That judgment was upheld by the High Court on appeal. The company went into liquidation. The applicant personally sought, unsuccessfully, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[3]        The applicant then brought the present proceedings in his name. The respondents applied for summary judgment, which was refused by the Associate Judge.[2] On appeal by the respondents, the Court of Appeal struck out the proceedings as an abuse of process.
[2]      Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-856, 27 July 2009.
[4]        That conclusion was fully justified, and indeed was inevitable. Leave to appeal is therefore refused, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents jointly.
Solicitors:
Parshotam & Co for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Rajendra Prasad sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his claim for breach of copyright as an abuse of process. Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd was the first respondent, with Arin Lal, Venkat Ram, and Mahesh Parera as the second, third, and fourth respondents respectively. Prasad's initial claim was brought on behalf of his company, which had previously unsuccessfully pursued a similar claim against the respondents. After the company went into liquidation, Prasad attempted to continue the action personally, but the Court of Appeal struck out his proceedings.

The central issue before the court was whether Prasad was permitted to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. The court also considered the broader issue of whether Prasad's persistence in pursuing the claim constituted an abuse of process. Prasad argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in law by dismissing his claim outright without considering the merits of his case. The respondents contended that Prasad's repeated attempts to pursue the same claim, despite numerous unsuccessful outcomes, amounted to an abuse of the court process.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal's decision to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process was justified. The court found that Prasad's continued pursuit of the claim, despite the clear futility and repetitive nature of his actions, constituted an abuse of the judicial process. The Supreme Court concluded that Prasad's application for leave to appeal was without merit and dismissed it. The court ordered Prasad to pay the respondents jointly costs of $2,500.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established