Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 11) [2014] NSWSC 1672 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 leave to issue a further subpoena - application refused Legislation Cited: Health Services Act 1997 (NSW) 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 do not propose to give Mr Chan leave to issue a further subpoena in the terms sought to the Director General of the Department of Health of New South Wales. 2I am not satisfied that is a just or sensible step to take in these proceedings, given the orders which the Court has already made, the subpoenas which have already been issued and the documents which have been produced in response. I do not take the view that it is necessary for a further subpoena to be issued to the Director General of the Department of Health of New South Wales given the provisions of s 17 of the Health Services Act 1997 (NSW) which constitutes Local Health Districts as body corporates. Under that legislative scheme Mr Chan's submission is that ABN numbers exist as a consequence. That they need to be identified in any subpoena which is issued is just not correct and is belied by the fact that the subpoenas which have been served, have been responded to. 3That application is, accordingly, refused. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 25 November 2014