Prasad v Attorney General of New Zealand [2013] NZHC 2371 (11 September 2013)

Last Updated: 15 October 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2012-404-004324

[2013] NZHC 2371

BETWEEN RAJENDRA PRASAD

Plaintiff

AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

First Defendant

Hearing:	11 September 2013
Appearances:	Mr Prasad in person the Plaintiff G Harrison for the Fourth to Twelfth Defendants M O'Brien for the Fifteenth Defendant
Judgment:	11 September 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

R PRASAD v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2013] NZHC 2371 [11 September 2013]

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Second Defendant

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Third Defendant

INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

RAVIN LAL

Fifth Defendant

IRENE ARIN RAVN LAL

Sixth Defendant

VENKAT RAM

Seventh Defendant

MAHESH PARERA

Eighth Defendant

CHENCHU NAGULU

Ninth Defendant

BHARAT PARSHOTAM

Tenth Defendant

GARY HARRISON & OTHERS

Eleventh Defendants

JAGDEO LAL

Twelfth Defendant

THOMAS & COMPANY

Thirteenth Defendant

MEYRIC & ASSOCIATES

Fourteenth Defendant

HESKETH HENRY LAWYERS

Fifteenth Defendant

INDAR LYNCH LAWYERS

Sixteenth Defendant

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Seventeenth Defendant

RUPA JODHA RAM

Eighteenth Defendant

KEILIA VELIA RAM

Nineteenth Defendant

ANZ BANK LIMITED

Twentieth Defendant

[1] This judgment addresses issues raised by the amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff (Mr Prasad).

[2] The proceeding is headed “Judicial Review for Miscarriage of Justice, From Serious Breach, Ignorance, Misunderstanding and Misrepresentation of Copyright Act 1994...”.

[3] The same defendants have been named as in previous proceedings filed by Mr Prasad and now also include branches of Government and as well the various lawyers and barristers who have represented him or who have represented his former business associates. The Law Society is named as a defendant, as is the ANZ Bank who held the mortgage on Mr Prasad’s home that has now been sold by mortgagee sale.

[4] Mr Prasad is a bankrupt he having been adjudicated bankrupt on 11 November 2010.

[5] On 1 August 2013 the Court directed Mr Prasad to serve his proceeding upon the Official Assignee. The Court expressed the hope that the Official Assignee might be able to assist the Court with the bankruptcy issues arising in Mr Prasad’s proceeding.

[6] When this matter was called before me on 3 September 2013 I directed it be listed for call in today’s chambers list. I also requested Mr Prasad to file a brief report advising which defendants had been served.

[7] I mentioned at that time that the Court may give consideration to striking out his claim. An Associate Judge has the inherent jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to s 26IA of the Judicature Act 1908.

[8] On 9 September 2013 Mr Prasad filed an affidavit of service. He deposed he has served the defendants personally and by email and provides details as to how and when service was affected.

[9] For today’s call he has filed a bundle of authorities. He has also filed submissions which review the history of his copyright proceedings before the District Court and the High Court, and in respect of his bankruptcy. He believes that all of the Judges involved in these processes ‘got it wrong’.

[10] A range of relief is sought by Mr Prasad’s proceeding. He wants his bankruptcy annulled and “the dismissal of the Official Assignee”. He seeks $3.5M in compensation and damages and effectively he seeks a reversal of all previous orders.

[11] This is a sad case. Mr Prasad has lost his home and he is unable to support his family.

Decision

[12] Because Mr Prasad is bankrupt, his property, including any capacity to deal with such property, was on 11 November 2010 vested in the Official Assignee. His property includes any causes of action and claims that he may have.

[13] It appears that Mr Prasad has not served his proceeding upon the Official Assignee directly. The Official Assignee’s consent is required before this proceeding was filed.

[14] Submissions for today’s hearing have helpfully been filed on behalf of the fifteenth defendant. Mr Harrison also addressed the Court on behalf of the parties he represents.

[15] Rule 15.1(1) of the High Court Rules permits a proceeding to be struck out if it is likely to cause prejudice or delay or is frivolous or vexatious, or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

[16] The submissions of Mr O’Brien for the 15th defendant focus in particular upon claims that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court or is otherwise frivolous and vexatious.

[17] The Court has previous directed the Registry not to accept any documents relating to Mr Prasad’s bankruptcy, nor indeed any new proceeding without reference to a Judge.

[18] Mr Prasad informed the Court that his bankruptcy issues have been appealed to the Court of Appeal. It is clear from the information on the Court’s file that Mr Prasad has pursued rights of appeal previously but leave to appeal was denied to him. It appears in fact that appeal rights have been exhausted and it is not now available to Mr Prasad to file applications for review.

[19] In his address to the Court Mr Prasad said that the continued breach of his copyright beyond the date of Judge Blackie’s decision continues to give right to file proceedings in respect of those subsequent breaches. Mr Harrison was correct in his response when he submitted in relation to the law of copyright that subsequent publications which are in substance the same or similar to earlier publications do not give rise to a new cause of action; that it is only if there is a major change to the former publication that a subsequent breach could occur. Also, in this case there is no evidence at all before the Court claiming any change in the format of the publication which Mr Prasad says was owned by him – notwithstanding that Judge Blackie said it was not and that in any event did it amount to a breach of copyright.

The pleadings

[20] The Court has considered and agrees with Mr O’Brien’s submissions regarding the various causes of action pleaded.

First and second causes of action

[21] These relate to Mr Prasad’s copyright claims and the judgment of Judge Blackie in the District Court on 29 August 2005. Mr Prasad now wants copyright

experts to be appointed to consider whether the publication over which he claims copyright was an original literary work.

[22] Judge Blackie had held that copyright was owned by Mr Prasad’s company and not by him personally. In any event the Learned Judge held there was no breach of copyright – a finding that was confirmed on appeal by Asher J.[1]

[23] Both the first and second causes of action have been raised previously and were finally decided. Therefore they are an abuse of process and should be struck out.

Third cause of action

[24] As Mr O’Brien observes this cause of action appears to combine claims relating to both copyright and insolvency as Mr Prasad again refers to the original copyright hearing before Judge Blackie and as well he refers to the costs order of Wylie J upon which his “unlawful” bankruptcy was based. [2]

[25] In another decision Bell AJ accepted there was no irregularity about the costs order of Wylie J and held there was no basis upon which the order could be set aside.[3]

[26] As Mr O’Brien submits, the Court accepts that the issues raised in the third cause of action have already been raised and finally decided. The third cause of action is also an abuse of process and should be struck out.

Fourth cause of action

[27] As Mr O’Brien observes the fourth cause of action makes sensational allegations against certain individuals and charges that the judiciary and the legal profession have been conspiring against him to defeat his copyright claims and cause his insolvency.

[28] The cause of action also refers to numerous complaints that Mr Prasad has filed with the New Zealand Law Society, and his dissatisfaction with the outcome of these complaints.

[29] As Mr O’Brien observes the essence of the plaintiff’s complaints remain his copyright claims and his insolvency that arose from an adverse costs order. These issues have been raised and finally decided previously and should be struck out.

Fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action

[30] These causes of action too are explicitly concerned with Mr Prasad’s copyright claims. They too are an abuse of process and should be struck out.

Eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action

[31] As Mr O’Brien observes these causes of action appear to be a combination of earlier causes of action as Mr Prasad pleads both issues relating to his copyright claims and issues relating to his insolvency.

[32] These causes of action also are to be struck out as an abuse of process.

Eleventh and twelfth causes of action

[33] The essence of these is Mr Prasad’s copyright claims. They are an abuse of process and should be struck out.

Thirteenth cause of action

[34] The Court accepts Mr O’Brien’s submission that Mr Prasad’s reference to the Copyright Act 1994, the Property Law Act 2007, and the Insolvency Act 2006 appear to support a generic claim for damages, alleging that the various defendants have “ripped off plaintiff and gave wrong advice”.

[35] These claims relate to copyright and insolvency issues and concern his apparent dissatisfaction with the advice he was given at various points.

[36] Mr O’Brien is correct in his observation that it is difficult with respect to the thirteenth cause of action to discern much more from it given the sparse amount of detail pleaded.

[37] Although previous judgments do not appear to have addressed issues relating to his dissatisfaction with legal advice received, it is clear that the basis of those lie in Mr Prasad’s copyright claims.

[38] The Court is of the view those claims are an abuse of process but if not then it is clear that they are frivolous and vexatious for they plead no evidential basis for the damages sought and they disclose no basis for the claims made. The thirteenth cause of action should also be struck out.

The proceeding generally

[39] In overview whilst all or most causes of action pleaded refer to issues previously raised and decided, it is the Court’s view that as a whole the plaintiff’s proceeding is frivolous and vexatious in that it lacks “the seriousness required of matters for the Court’s determination”.[4]

[40] The Court agrees with Mr O’Brien’s submission that the plaintiff’s pleadings are unclear, and appear to make allegations of conspiracy between the judiciary and the legal profession, and the New Zealand Law Society, and as well other allegations of criminal conduct by various defendants, without providing any evidential foundation for those claims. These have no bearing on the substantive matter of the plaintiff’s claims which relate to his copyright and insolvency matters.

[41] It is clear that Mr Prasad’s claims fall well short of the seriousness threshold that the Court requires, and are frivolous and vexatious and should be struck out in their entirety.

Judgment

[42] Mr Prasad’s proceeding is struck out in its entirety.

Associate Judge Christiansen

---

[1] Sage Group Ltd v Indiana Publications Ltd, HC Auckland, CIV 2005-404-5424, 13 April 2006.
[2] Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd, HC Auckland, CIV 2009-404-1521, 11 February 2010.
[3] Re Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd ex parte Prasad HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-3333. 27 July 2010.
[4] Deliu v Hong [2011] NZHC 602; [2011] NZAR 681 (HC) at [22].