Attorney General v Bhattacharya [2004] NSWSC 806

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Attorney General v Bhattacharya [2004] NSWSC 806 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 August 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J DECISION : Leave to file notice of motion refused

CATCHWORDS : vexatious litigant - application for leave to file notice of motion LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Act 1970, s84 PARTIES : Pranay Kumar Bhattacharya - Applicant Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales - Respondent FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 10904/03 COUNSEL : Applicant in person RC Titterton - Respondent SOLICITORS : I V Knight - Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DUTY JUDGE LIST

SIMPSON J

Thursday 19 August 2004

10904/03 ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AND FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v Pranay Kumar BHATTACHARYA

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: On 10 December 2003 in this Division of this Court Whealy J made an order pursuant to s 84(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 that any legal proceeding instituted by Mr Bhattacharya not be continued and that Mr Bhattacharya be restrained from instituting any further proceedings without the leave of the Court. 2 Mr Bhattacharya by application now seeks the leave of the Court to file a further application, that being a notice of motion contained in papers he has provided to me this morning. Inter alia, he seeks an order that his cross-claim be determined by correction of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, and declaratory orders. 3 I have been told that Mr Bhattacharya appealed against the decision of Whealy J but that the appeal was dismissed or, alternatively, that leave to appeal was refused. 4 For at least two reasons I am satisfied that the leave Mr Bhattacharya now seeks should not be granted. In part he appears to be challenging a decision of Whealy J and also the decision of the Court of Appeal and I am satisfied that neither such challenge could properly be pursued in this Court and that therefore any application in that respect would be an abuse of process. It would, therefore, not be proper to grant the leave that Mr Bhattacharya seeks. 5 My attention has been drawn to subs (4) of s 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 which requires that the Court not give the leave sought unless satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings. 6 Not only am I not satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process, as I have already said, I am satisfied that if filed they would be an abuse of process. I am equally satisfied that there is no prima facie ground for the proceeding. 7 Accordingly, I refuse the leave sought by Mr Bhattacharya. I will have the papers provided to me this morning placed with the file numbered 10904/03.