Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan

Judgment 1Yesterday, I granted one and refused two other adjournment applications made by Mr Chan, an unrepresented litigant declared to be a vexatious litigant by order of Adamson J (see Attorney General v Chan [2011] NSWSC 1315). 2In this matter the plaintiff seeks a declaration that Mr Chan was in contempt of the Local Court in December 2011 when he refused to comply with an order for examination made under Rule 38.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The matter had been listed for a four day hearing, the hearing in September 2013 having been adjourned when Mr Chan was referred for pro bono legal assistance, given the serious allegation which he faced (see Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan [2013] NSWSC 1270). 3The first application granted was for a short adjournment of half an hour made at the commencement of the hearing, so that Mr Chan could photocopy documents he wished to rely on. The plaintiff consented to that application. The second and third adjournment applications were opposed and refused. 4The hearing had been fixed to suit Mr Chan, after he was referred for pro bono legal assistance and assistance was provided by two counsel. When the matter came into the list for directions in October, they were granted leave to withdraw, Mr Chan having received advice from them, which he was not prepared to accept. 5Various directions were then given. Mr Chan foreshadowed that he might seek a further adjournment, which he was to advance by way of motion supported by an affidavit prior to the hearing. He did not make such an application. 6The second adjournment application was made yesterday at a time when Mr Chan had not photocopied the documents he wished to rely on during the first adjournment. As was later confirmed by his conduct of the third adjournment application, it became apparent that he was not then prepared to advance his oral application, having not even decided what evidence he would seek to rely on, to support that application. 7The adjournment application was refused and the hearing then commenced with a short opening of the plaintiff's case. Mr Chan also opened his case and confirmed that he wished to cross-examine Mr Oom, who had sworn an affidavit on 8 November 2012. At 12.15pm, I adjourned to 2pm so that Mr Chan could do two things. Firstly, to organise the evidence he wished to rely on to advance his third adjournment application. Secondly, to consider what questions he wished to ask Mr Oom in cross-examination. 8At 2pm, Mr Chan made his further adjournment application, still not having decided what evidence he wished to rely on, or photocopying those documents. He had printed and photocopied a submission apparently written on his laptop, which he then sought to expand on orally. Eventually, he tendered a number of documents and gave oral evidence. At 4.30pm, I refused this application for the following reasons. 9Mr Chan relied on the difficulties which he faced in defending the serious charge brought against him given. In summary they included: