Prasad v Manukau District Court HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-8484

[2010] NZHC 1168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-8484

BETWEEN  RAJENDRA PRASAD Applicant

ANDMANUKAU DISTRICT COURT First Respondent

ANDSAGE GROUP LIMITED Second Respondent

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED

Third Respondent

ANDRAVIN LAL Fourth Respondent

Hearing:         On the Papers Appearances: Applicant in Person Judgment: 25 June 2010

JUDGMENT (No.2) OF COOPER J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on

25 June 2010 at 10.30 a.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140

Mangere Community Law Centre, PO Box 43 201, Manukau 2153

Copy to:
R Prasad, PO Box 14 637, Panmure, Auckland

G M Harrison, PO Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

PRASAD V MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8484  25 June 2010

[1]      Mr Prasad has filed a document which is intituled as an application for re-call of judgment, but in fact ranges more widely.   I note that I have not thought it necessary to hear from the respondents.

[2]      Insofar as it is an application to recall a judgment, the judgment in question is my judgment of 25 May 2010.  It is apparent from the terms of the application that Mr Prasad considers that my judgment was incorrect.  It does not assert any of the grounds referred to by Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2)[1] as justifying a recall of judgment, and that part of the application is dismissed.

[1] Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2) [1968] NZLR 632.

[3]      The balance of the application seeks orders amending the statement of claim and the addition of three more respondents, being the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister for Economic Development.   In my judgment of 25 May I struck out the proceeding on the basis that Mr Prasad lacked standing to bring it and also on the basis that it was an abuse of process.  In the circumstances, there is no statement of claim to amend, and neither can additional respondents be added to the claim.

[4]      Accordingly, those parts of the application for orders amending the statement of claim and adding additional respondents must also be dismissed.  I make an order accordingly.