Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 16) [2015] NSWSC 1200

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 16) [2015] NSWSC 1200 Hearing dates: 20 August Date of orders: 20 August 2015 Decision date: 20 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Application to defer delivery of judgment refused. Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – alleged contempt before Local Court proceedings – vexatious litigant – fitness hearing – application to postpone delivery of judgment – application not granted Category: Procedural and other rulings 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 1. HER HONOUR: This morning the matter is listed for judgment and directions. The judgment concerns the question of Mr Chan's fitness. 2. At 9:00 am this morning, Mr Chan served on the Crown solicitor a document which I've marked MFI 20, which foreshadowed an application this morning to postpone the delivery of judgment today so that, "I can avoid complications of my appeal to the Court of Appeal to vary her Honour's orders". 3. Mr Chan pressed that application this morning. It is opposed. 4. Mr Chan supported his application by submissions which revealed that he has not as yet lodged any appeal to the Court of Appeal. He explained that that is because he presently does not have funds which would permit him to do so. Nor has he identified which of the earlier judgments given in the proceedings he wishes to appeal. 5. Mr Chan said that what he wants before the judgment as to his fitness is delivered, is a further opportunity to lead evidence as to his fitness. He says he is presently co-operating with authorities whom he has approached, who had obtained reports as to his psychological condition which he says that he knows exists. Mr Chan denies that he has in the past failed to take available steps to pursue such documents. He also says that earlier, various entities served with subpoenas had not adequately complied with the obligations imposed on them by the subpoenas, and that the Court had deliberately failed to pursue those subpoenas and to enforce them. 6. Mr Chan has also said that he is, again, pursuing with unidentified authorities a request that this prosecution be withdrawn. 7. Mr Chan denies that his application is yet another strategy to delay the proceedings, relying on what he said about his financially straightened circumstances and the undoubted cost of pursuing an application to the Court of Appeal. 8. Once I commenced delivering this judgment, Mr Chan interrupted, to indicate by way of alternative, as I understand it, that he pressed for a short adjournment until Friday of next week, in case, he said, psychiatrists reports which he is pursuing are forthcoming. 9. I am satisfied that the applications are ones which must be refused. 10. The question of Mr Chan's fitness has been on foot now since May 2014. The question has been heard and needs to be determined, in circumstances where I'm well satisfied that Mr Chan has been given a fair opportunity to be heard on the question of his fitness. In the circumstances, there is no proper basis on which the judgment can be delayed. 11. Accordingly, I now refuse his application to defer giving that judgment and will move to deliver it.