Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 19) [2016] NSWSC 776 Hearing dates: 14 June 2016 Date of orders: 14 June 2016 Decision date: 14 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Application for adjournment refused. Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – alleged contempt before Local Court proceedings – vexatious litigant – application for an adjournment – refused Cases Cited: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 18) [2016] NSWSC 775 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: The matter is in the list today so that Mr Chan can complete his evidence. This morning, after tendering one document, Mr Chan made yet another adjournment application. It is refused. The grounds advanced were directed to the matters on which the Prothonotary relied to oppose the adjournment application which Mr Chan made and I refused on Friday last (see Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan (No 18) [2016] NSWSC 775). 2. This morning, I invited Mr Chan to indicate what had changed over the weekend that he relied on to advance his further application. Mr Chan again repeated his submissions as to his lack of financial means to prepare documents he wished to tender, over the weekend. Mr Chan also claimed that he had no electricity at his home and had to rely on public electricity supply to use his computer. There was no evidence of this, but on his case it was unreasonable for the hearing to proceed in those circumstances, given that over the long weekend, public libraries were closed and he could not produce relevant documents. 3. Mr Chan also claimed to be suffering from "the usual post-illness symptoms", including fatigue, to press for the adjournment, claiming that his work capacity had been reduced and he had been unable to focus on anything over the weekend. Mr Chan also submitted that the nature of these proceedings required an intelligent understanding of the law, which was beyond him, given his symptoms. 4. I do not accept these submissions, advanced as they were to explain why Mr Chan had not used the time since November 2015, when the matter was listed for hearing, to prepare himself for these proceedings. 5. Mr Chan's articulate submissions and demeanour in Court belied the incapacity he claimed to be suffering from. His submissions that I had misunderstood the relevance of the subpoena which he had sought to have issued last Friday and which I refused for reasons then explained revealed this, as did submissions about the other matters which the Prothonotary had advanced on the adjournment application which was refused last Friday. A further adjournment application such as this is not an opportunity to re-litigate matters which have already been dealt with, as both Mr Chan's last adjournment application and the application for the issue of yet another subpoena were on Friday last. 6. I am satisfied that no basis for yet another adjournment of the proceedings has been established. Mr Chan now has an opportunity to conclude giving his evidence. He has been given every reasonable opportunity to prepare himself for this hearing. I do not accept that it has been an impossible task, as Mr Chan submitted. Whether he avails himself of that opportunity is, of course, a matter for him. ********** 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: 20 April 2018