Bhagat v Murphy & Ors; Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd & Ors; Bhagat v Peter Young & Ors; Bhagat v Global Custodians Limited & Ors; Bhagat v Murphy as Trustee & Unitholder of The Meridan Sub-Trusts & Ors

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for a stay of the judgments which I made in respect of proceedings brought by Mr Bhagat against Mr Justice Peter Young, amongst others.

Mr Bhagat put at the forefront of his submission the argument that unless a stay were granted the appeal will be useless. This is plainly wrong. If the Court of Appeal holds that my judgment is wrong, Mr Bhagat will, of course, be able to continue with the actions which I have struck out.

Mr Bhagat has also submitted in relation to the orders that these matters should be transferred to the Equity Division of the Court; that since one of, what I will call for convenience his causes of action, is a conspiracy to cheat and defraud and that this is a common law offence, if it is heard in the Equity Division it will be dismissed because, he says, equity does not know of or cannot deal with common law offences. This demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the relationship between the common law and equity and the relationship between the Common Law and Equity Divisions of this Court. The Equity Division is fully charged, as is the Common Law Division, with jurisdiction to deal with all legal questions, whether legal or equitable, that fall for decision in the course of litigation brought in this Court and in relation to which the Court as a whole has jurisdiction.

Mr Bhagat has also submitted, in accordance with my direction, a number of matters in writing. I do not think it necessary for the purposes of this judgment to set them out here, although I will have them attached as an appendix. It is sufficient to say that nothing in those submissions justifies the grant of a stay against any of the orders which I made on 26 March last. Accordingly the applications are dismissed with costs. APPENDIX SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFF TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY ORAL ARGUMENTS 1. The Plaintiff relies on the authorities quoted in Ritchies Annotation in 44.5.1, 44.5.3, 51.15.1, 51.15.2 and 51.15.3. in respect of a stay pending appeal for the transfer of the proceedings from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division;. 2. The Plaintiff also relies on the Judgement of Mr Justice Young Delivered on 17 August 2001 in Supreme Court Proceedings No 1848/1999 and in Supreme Court Proceedings No 1848/99, No 1660/00 and 2494/00 that the offences pleaded by the Plaintiff are Common Law offences and that the interests of justice demands that the matter be heard in the Common Law Division 4. The Plaintiff relies on s. 88 to s.89 of the Act. 5. The requirements of justice demands a Stay of the Transfer of the Proceedings from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division, pending Appeal; SINCE: (a) a successful Appeal will be useless unless the stay was granted; (b) unless the stay is granted an appeal will be nugatory; FILED: 23 April 2002 Hari Bhagat, Plaintiff