Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 11) [2014] NSWSC 1672 (20 November 2014)

Supreme Court of New South Wales Decisions

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 11) [2014] NSWSC 1672 (20 November 2014)

Last Updated: 26 November 2014

Supreme Court New South Wales

Case Title:	Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 11)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWSC 1672
Hearing Date(s):	20 November 2014
Decision Date:	20 November 2014
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Adjournment application refused.
Catchwords:	CONTEMPT OF COURT - alleged contempt before Local Court proceedings - vexatious litigant - fitness hearing - application for leave to issue a further subpoena - application refused
Legislation Cited:	Health Services Act 1997 (NSW)
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Yau Hang Chan (Defendant)
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel: Ms B Baker (Plaintiff)
- Solicitors:	Solicitors: IV Knight, Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Mr Chan (self-represented)
File Number(s):	2012/350266
Publication Restriction:	None

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: I do not propose to give Mr Chan leave to issue a further subpoena in the terms sought to the Director General of the Department of Health of New South Wales.

2. I am not satisfied that is a just or sensible step to take in these proceedings, given the orders which the Court has already made, the subpoenas which have already been issued and the documents which have been produced in response. I do not take the view that it is necessary for a further subpoena to be issued to the Director General of the Department of Health of New South Wales given the provisions of s 17 of the Health Services Act 1997 (NSW) which constitutes Local Health Districts as body corporates. Under that legislative scheme Mr Chan's submission is that ABN numbers exist as a consequence. That they need to be identified in any subpoena which is issued is just not correct and is belied by the fact that the subpoenas which have been served, have been responded to.

3. That application is, accordingly, refused.

**********