PRASAD V MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8484
The application to recall was dismissed because it did not assert or establish any of the recognised grounds for recall (per Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2)); further applications to amend the statement of claim or to add respondents were dismissed because the proceeding had already been struck out for lack of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-363b2a7d_730f_4b5c_8bb1_266d2810d6b8.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Rajendra Prasad; First Respondent: Manukau District Court; Second Respondent: Sage Group Limited; Third Respondent: Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited; Fourth Respondent: Ravin Lal
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 June 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Proceeding (application to Recall Judgment) / Post‑judgment Application to Recall and to Amend Statement of Claim/add Respondents
- Outcome
- Application dismissed in full
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Standing, Abuse of Process, Striking Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Joining Parties
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rajendra Prasad
Applicant
Manukau District Court
First Respondent
Sage Group Limited
Second Respondent
Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited
Third Respondent
Ravin Lal
Fourth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding (application to Recall Judgment) / Post‑judgment Application to Recall and to Amend Statement of Claim/add Respondents
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established grounds to recall the High Court judgment of 25 May 2010
- 2 Whether the applicant may amend the statement of claim after the proceeding was struck out
- 3 Whether additional respondents may be added after strike‑out of the proceeding
Ratio Decidendi
The application to recall was dismissed because it did not assert or establish any of the recognised grounds for recall (per Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2)); further applications to amend the statement of claim or to add respondents were dismissed because the proceeding had already been struck out for lack of standing and as an abuse of process, leaving no claim to amend or parties to add.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed in full
Orders
- Application to recall judgment dismissed
- Application to amend statement of claim dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PRASAD V MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-8484 25 June 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-8484BETWEEN RAJENDRA PRASAD Applicant AND MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT First Respondent AND SAGE GROUP LIMITED Second Respondent AND INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED Third Respondent AND RAVIN LAL Fourth Respondent Hearing: On the Papers Appearances: Applicant in Person Judgment: 25 June 2010JUDGMENT (No.2) OF COOPER JThis 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[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. [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.1 Horowhenua County v Nash (No.2) [1968] NZLR 632.