Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 47/2014
[2014] NZSC 81

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:	25 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Prasad has applied for recall of the Court’s judgment of 20 June 2014[1] dismissing applications for leave to appeal against decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
[1]Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2014] NZSC 78.
The grounds for the present application are expressed very generally. The applicant asserts that the judgment is in serious breach of the law, has caused substantial miscarriage of justice and was wrongly made by “bundling” unrelated matters, with the result that it is misconceived and of no relevance to the applications for leave to appeal. The submissions make extensive reference to the underlying copyright and bankruptcy proceedings in which final judgments have been entered against the applicant.
Nothing in what the applicant has put to us raises matters that could give the Court jurisdiction to reconsider the judgment it has delivered. The Court is also satisfied that the form of its judgment, which addressed applications in respect of three judgments of the Court of Appeal and High Court, was appropriate in the circumstances.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rajendra Prasad applied for a recall of the Supreme Court of New Zealand's judgment dated 20 June 2014, which dismissed his applications for leave to appeal against decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, comprising McGrath, William Young, and Arnold JJ, considered the application and ultimately dismissed it. The applicant argued that the judgment was in serious breach of the law, caused a substantial miscarriage of justice, and was wrongly made by bundling unrelated matters. Prasad claimed that the judgment was misconceived and irrelevant to the applications for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court examined the grounds for the application and found that Prasad had not raised any matters that could provide the Court with jurisdiction to reconsider the judgment. The Court was satisfied that its judgment, which addressed applications in respect of three judgments of the Court of Appeal and High Court, was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court dismissed the application for recall.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction to reconsider the judgment it had delivered, as the applicant had not raised any valid grounds for reconsideration. The Court also confirmed that the form of its judgment, which addressed multiple applications in a single judgment, was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case clarifies the circumstances in which an application for recall may be made and the standard to which such an application must be held. The Court's dismissal of the application for recall reinforces the importance of ensuring that any such application raises valid grounds for reconsideration and complies with the relevant legal standards.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established