Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 596

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 596 Hearing dates: 13 May 2014 Decision date: 16 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Application refused. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - reasons for refusal of adjournment and disqualification applications - no notice or motion - adjournment sought due to financial circumstances, question of prejudice, criminal interference, legal aid appeal - pro bono legal advice - dissatisfaction with prior legal advice - further referral sought not granted - disqualification - actual bias - no bias established - refused Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Yau Hang Chan (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Ms B Baker IV Knight, Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Mr Chan (Self-represented) File Number(s): 2012/350266 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1The hearing of this matter was adjourned on 24 February 2014 to 12 May 2014, so that Mr Chan could put his evidentiary case and the party's submissions could be heard. 2On 5 March I gave reasons for refusing various orders Mr Chan had sought in a motion filed on 24 February, which had been refused that day (see Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 153). When the hearing commenced on 12 May, Mr Chan was granted an adjournment so that he could read the judgment. It emerged that he had not attended on 5 March when the reasons were given, despite having been sent written notice of the listing by registered mail on 28 February. A copy of the judgment had also been mailed to Mr Chan, but he said that he had not received it. Nor had he approached the Court for a copy, or read the judgment where it is published on the Court's website. 3On resumption, without prior notice or a motion, Mr Chan made a further application for an adjournment, which I refused. On that refusal, Mr Chan made a further application that I disqualify myself, on this occasion for actual bias. I also refused that application. 4I also refused Mr Chan's demand that my associate sign the copy of the judgment of 5 March, which she had given him at my request. That document contained a copy of her signed certification that the document was a copy of the judgment given on 5 March, in the Court's usual terms. Mr Chan has no right under the Civil Procedure Rules 2005, or otherwise, to demand that the document given to him be signed again. The time spent on his pursuit of my staff and later in court when he pressed his request, was simply wasted. 5These are the reasons for the refusal of Mr Chan's adjournment and disqualification applications.