IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2013-404-004585 [2013] NZHC 2861
IN THE MATTER of an application to review
BY RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
Hearing: On the papers
Judgment: 30 October 2013
JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
(Review of Registrar's decision declining refund of fees)
This judgment was delivered by me on 30 Octobe 2013 at 3.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High
Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………
Copy to: Applicant
Rafiq (3) [2013] NZHC 2861 [30 October 2013]
[1] Mr Rafiq applies to review the Registrar’s decision declining his application
for a refund of fees.
[2] The application for refund refers to an appeal proceeding filed by Mr Rafiq against APN NZ Ltd.1 In a judgment delivered on 20 March 2013 Brewer J declined Mr Rafiq’s application to appeal from a decision of the District Court. Mr Rafiq applies for a refund of the filing fees in that proceeding. Although he has set out some very brief financial details stating his weekly income after tax was $240 (self- earned) and refers to expenses of $240 (rent $140 and food/grocers $100) no further
detail is provided of his means. It appears Mr Rafiq’s main reason for seeking the refund as stated is that, in his consideration, the Court failed to deliver “service” up to a satisfactory statutory standard.
[3] The power to refund fees is provided for by reg 23 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013. For the reasons given in a judgment of 29 October 2013 on an application by Mr Rafiq for review of the Registrar’s decision declining to waiver filing fee, I am satisfied that if an application for fee waiver had been made prior to the fee being paid the application would not have been granted. The criteria for a refund is not made out.
[4] The application for review is dismissed.
Venning J
- AGLC
- Rafiq [2013] NZHC 2861
- Case
- [2013] NZHC 2861
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address include the power to refund fees and the criteria that must be met for such a refund to be granted. The power to refund fees is provided for by regulation 23 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013. The court must determine whether the criteria for a refund have been met and, if not, whether the application for review should be dismissed.
The court found that the criteria for a refund had not been met and dismissed the application for review. The court noted that Mr. Rafiq had not provided sufficient detail about his financial situation, and the main reason for seeking the refund was that he believed the court had failed to deliver a satisfactory statutory standard. The court held that if an application for fee waiver had been made prior to the fee being paid, it would not have been granted. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed.
The final order of the court was to dismiss Mr. Rafiq's application for review of the Registrar's decision declining his application for a refund of fees.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.