Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 10) [2014] NSWSC 1671

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 10) [2014] NSWSC 1671 Hearing dates: 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 further adjournment - refused Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Yau Hang Chan (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms B Baker (Plaintiff) Solicitors: IV Knight, Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Mr Chan (self-represented) File Number(s): 2012/350266 Publication restriction: None

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1HER HONOUR: I am going to rule on your adjournment application. It is refused for these reasons. 2The matter is listed today for a fitness hearing. That question arose during the course of evidence given by Mr Chan on 16 May. Orders were then made following upon evidence given by Mr Chan as to the existence of various psychological and psychiatric reports. Some documents were later produced by the police in response to the orders. As a result of those documents, the plaintiff issued subpoenas to various entities which resulted in the production of certain other documents. Pursuant to an arrangement between the plaintiff and Mr Chan the plaintiff has been given access only to one document so produced, which has been marked exhibit 29. It is not a psychiatric or psychological report in relation to Mr Chan. 3Directions were given for the filing and service of evidence and submissions by way of preparation for today's hearing. Mr Chan did not file any submissions and has not filed any evidence going to the question of his fitness. The adjournment application is pressed this morning on a number of bases. Firstly, Mr Chan said that in the intervening period he met the Attorney-General in person and has since written three letters to him requesting a termination or stay of the proceedings. He has not received any reply to that correspondence and sought the adjournment in the hope that he would receive a reply. The correspondence is not in evidence. There is no apparent basis on which what Mr Chan has requested might be granted. 4The second basis on which the adjournment application was pressed was a desire on Mr Chan's part for the plaintiff to pursue further psychiatric and psychological reports into his mental health. He, it appears, himself has not taken any steps to obtain such reports, other than writing to the plaintiff suggesting other steps which it might take to pursue the production of such documents, a pursuit which he says would be within the spirit of the orders which I made at the May hearing. Mr Chan plainly believes such documents exist. He has had every opportunity to take steps available to him to obtain such documents if he wished to rely on them, but he has not done so for reasons which he has explained. They include his views as to the spirit and intent of the orders which I made in May and his own financial circumstances. 5In opposing the adjournment application the plaintiff relied on the request made of Mr Chan in May to agree to submitting to a psychiatric examination, which he refused. Mr Chan has explained his view that there ought not to be any further examination until the existing reports are obtained. In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that that is not an appropriate basis for adjourning today's hearing, now long scheduled and which has to be dealt with. 6Mr Chan has had every opportunity to take steps available to him to obtain relevant reports if he wishes to rely on them. I do not accept what he says to have been the spirit and intent of the May orders to now require the further adjournment of this hearing so that the plaintiff can be required to pursue further, in the way that he suggested, the reports which he says exist. 7Accordingly, the adjournment application is refused.