Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd

[2012] NZHC 316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-3333 [2012] NZHC 316

BETWEEN  RAJENDRA PRASAD Applicant

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD & OTHERS

First Respondent

ANDTHE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Second Respondent

ANDMANUKAU DISTRICT COURT Third Respondent

Hearing:         27 February 2012

Counsel:         Applicant in person

G M Harrison for Indiana Publications (and on instructions from

Crown Law Office in respect of Manukau District Court) Judgment: 1 March 2012

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 March 2012 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SOLICITORS

Parshotam & Co (Auckland) for First Respondent Official Assignee (Auckland) for Second Respondent Crown Law (Wellington) for Third Respondent

(Copy to Applicant in person)

COUNSEL GM Harrison

PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD & OTHERS HC AK CIV-2010-404-3333 [1 March 2012]

Application

[1]      On 23 January 2012, Mr Prasad filed a document dated 16 December 2011 intituled:

Interlocutory Application – for review of Associate Judges and review of

Registrar’s decision, before Justice, – and for leave to appellate court

[2]      There are 35 respondents listed.

[3]      Inside the document is a statement that Mr Prasad will apply to the Court for orders:

a)To  make  amendments  to  Christiansen  A.J  decision  at  several Paragraphs and in particular at [33, Line 1-3] of 16th December 2011 in respect of Cost Order Sealed by Registrar upon which Bankruptcy is based and

b)        Leave  for Annulment  of  corresponding  Bankruptcy  at  Paragraph

14.5  of  Sargi sson’s  deci sion  of 13th  May 2011 based upon it, in

Court of Appeal, CA489/10 was filed by Applicant

c)        Grant of Applicant’s Cost, Compensation and Damages

Background

[4]      Mr Prasad is an undischarged bankrupt.   He was adjudicated bankrupt by

Associate Judge Faire on 11 November 2010.[1]

[1] Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd v Prasad HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-3333, 11 November 2010.

[5]      On 6 December 2010, Mr Prasad filed an application to annul the bankruptcy. By  a  reserved  judgment  delivered  on  14 June  2011, Associate  Judge  Sargisson declined the application.[2]

[2] Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd and Official Assignee HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-3333, 14 June 2011.

[6]      On 21 June 2011, Mr Prasad filed an application for a judicial review of

Associate Judge Sargisson’s judgment.  In a reserved judgment delivered on 20 July

2011, Dobson J dismissed the application.[3]     On 25 July 2011, Mr Prasad filed an

application to recall the judgment for errors of fact and law.  That application was dismissed by Toogood J on 22 August 2011.[4]

[3] Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd and Official Assignee HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-3333, 20 July 2011.

[4] Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd and Official Assignee HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-

3333, 22 August 2011.

[7]      On 7 November 2011, Mr Prasad filed an application to review the decision of the Registrar of this Court to seal an order for costs.   This was in respect of litigation in which Wylie J awarded costs of $14,971 against Mr Prasad.[5]   It was this debt on which the bankruptcy notice was based.  The point of Mr Prasad’s challenge was his contention that the costs order of Wylie J should have been sealed by the District Court and not the High Court.   In Mr Prasad’s view, this invalidated the bankruptcy notice and hence the bankruptcy application and adjudication were also invalid.

[5] Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd and Official Assignee HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-

1521, 9 October 2009. 

[8]      On 16 December 2011, Associate Judge Christiansen dismissed Mr Prasad’s application to review the decision of the Registrar.[6]   In doing so, the Judge held that Mr Prasad’s  application  was  merely  an  attempt  to  challenge  matters  already determined finally by the Court and as such amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.[7]

Hearing

[6] Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd, Official Assignee and Manukau District Court  HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-3333, 16 December 2011.

[7] Ibid, at [37]-[38].

[9]      The latest application by Mr Prasad was called before me in the duty list on

27 February 2012.  Mr Harrison appeared for the first respondent and on instructions from the Crown Law Office for the Manukau District Court.   There were no appearances by other respondents nor any proof of service on them.

[10]     I invited Mr Prasad to address me on why it was that he considered the decision of Associate Judge Christiansen to be wrong.   Mr Prasad handed up a

memorandum containing his legal submissions and started to go through them.   It

became clear that he was still attempting to challenge the validity of the sealing of

Wylie J’s order for costs by the Registrar. That matter has been adjudicated.

[11]     During the course of his argument, Mr Prasad handed me another document intituled:

Amended  Interlocutory Application:–  for  setting aside  bankruptcy notice first filed on 8th July 2010, not heard before Bell A.J on 27/07/10

[12]     This was dated 10 February 2012 and appears, from a note on the file, to have been rejected for filing by the registry on 24 February 2012.  Mr Prasad attempted to proceed on the basis that he was now addressing two interlocutory applications.

[13]     I explained to Mr Prasad that I was not at all sure that I should allow his applications to proceed.  I explained the rules against re-litigating final decisions of the Court either by direct challenge or by flank attacks.  Mr Prasad’s submission to me was that his applications raise matters not previously litigated and do not constitute attempts to re-litigate matters already adjudicated.  I reserved my decision.

Decision

[14]     There are three matters which, in other circumstances, might take prominence in finding against Mr Prasad:

(a)       The form of the documents.  They do not comply with the High Court

Rules regarding commencing proceedings for review;

(b)The contents of the documents.    They do not  intelligibly plead a legally recognisable case; and

(c)       His status as an undischarged bankrupt.

[15]     However, I put those factors entirely to one side.  Mr Prasad is a lay litigant and if I could discern any arguable case then I would do what I could properly do to afford him the chance to argue it.  But I do not discern any such arguable case.

[16]     It is clear to me that Mr Prasad is continuing to attack the judicial decisions that led to him being declared bankrupt and subsequently confirmed the legality of the bankruptcy procedure.  In doing so (I agree with Associate Judge Christiansen) he is abusing the process of the Court.

[17]     I direct that Mr Prasad’s application to review the judgment of Associate Judge Christiansen be struck out.  I uphold the decision of the registry not to accept the “amended interlocutory application for setting aside bankruptcy notice first filed on 8 July 2010, not heard before Bell AJ on 27/07/10”.

[18]     I further direct that the registry refuse to accept for filing any documents which might hereafter be filed by Mr Prasad which in any way relate to his bankruptcy without first obtaining the leave of a Judge or Associate Judge.

[19]     In the circumstances of Mr Prasad’s status as an undischarged bankrupt and because I did not call on Mr Harrison to make submissions, I have decided not to

make an order of costs against Mr Prasad on this latest round of litigation.

Brewer J