Rafiq

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004585

CIV-2013-404-004586 [2013] NZHC 3440

IN THE MATTER of applications to review Registrar's decisions

BY RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant

Hearing: (On the papers) Judgment: 17 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

(Review of Registrar's decision declining to refund fees)

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 December 2013 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the
High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to: Applicant

Re Rafiq [2013] NZHC 3440 [17 December 2013]

[1] Mr Rafiq seeks to review decisions of the Registrar in both the above proceedings. In both cases the Registrar refused Mr Rafiq’s second application to refund filing fees he had previously paid.

[2] In both cases Mr Rafiq had previously filed applications for refunds of filing fees which were declined by the Registrar. The Registrar’s decision was upheld on review.1

[3] At the time of those applications Mr Rafiq stated that he was self-employed. Mr Rafiq is now apparently in receipt of a benefit. On that basis he made his second application for refund of the fees. The Registrar declined the applications on the basis that the change in circumstances (namely receipt of the benefit) had occurred well after the fees had been paid and indeed after the cases had been disposed of.

[4] The applications for review are dismissed in both cases. They are dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) The power to refund fees is contained in reg 23, High Court Fees Regulations 2013. The criteria in reg 23(1)(a), (b) or (c) do not apply in the present case. The Regulation contemplates an application being made in circumstances where an application has not previously been made. In [2013] NZHC 2861 an application for waiver had previously been made. In [2013] NZHC 2860 the Court found the fee would not have been waived if application had been made.

(b)The Regulations do not contemplate successive applications being made.

(c) Mr Rafiq has already applied for refund and had his applications dismissed by the Registrar. Those decisions were upheld on review previously. It is an abuse of process to bring these further
applications.

1 [2013] NZHC 2860; and [2013] NZHC 2861.

(d)The applications for review contain intemperate, scandalous and unacceptable language.

[5] The Registrar is directed not to accept any more documents from Mr Rafiq on these files.

Venning J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr. Rafiq, who sought to review decisions made by the Registrar concerning the refund of filing fees he had paid. Mr. Rafiq had initially filed applications for refunds in two separate proceedings, which were declined by the Registrar. The Registrar's decision was upheld on review, leading Mr. Rafiq to make a second application for a refund, citing a change in his circumstances, specifically his receipt of a benefit. The Registrar again declined the application, and Mr. Rafiq sought a review of this decision. The High Court, presided over by Venning J, dismissed Mr. Rafiq's applications for review. The Court found that the power to refund fees is governed by regulation 23 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013, which does not permit successive applications for refund. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applications contained intemperate and unacceptable language, which contributed to the decision to dismiss the applications. The Registrar was directed not to accept any further documents from Mr. Rafiq regarding these proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Registrar's decisions to decline the refund of filing fees were properly made under the relevant regulations. Mr. Rafiq argued that the change in his financial circumstances justified a refund of the fees. The Court considered the provisions of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013, particularly regulation 23, which sets out the criteria for refunding fees. The Court found that the criteria did not apply to Mr. Rafiq's circumstances because the change in his financial status occurred after the fees were paid and the cases were already disposed of. Additionally, the Court held that the Regulations do not allow for successive applications for refund, and Mr. Rafiq's attempt to make a second application was deemed an abuse of process. The Court also highlighted the inappropriate language used in the applications, which further justified the dismissal of the review applications.

In dismissing the applications for review, Venning J emphasized that the power to refund fees is strictly regulated and does not permit successive applications. The Court reiterated that Mr. Rafiq had already applied for a refund once, and the Registrar's decision had been upheld on review. The Court found that the applications for review were not only an abuse of process but also contained language that was intemperate, scandalous, and unacceptable. As a result, the Court dismissed the applications and directed the Registrar not to accept any further documents from Mr. Rafiq on these files. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements and the appropriate use of court processes in seeking refunds of court fees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established