Rafiq v Department of Internal Affairs

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA496/2014
[2014] NZCA 501

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Appellant
AND	DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in person
A R Longdill and O Klaassen for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

14 October 2014 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

AThe application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is dismissed.
BThe appellant is to pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 8 September 2014 the appellant, Razdan Rafiq, pre-emptively applied to review a decision made by the Registrar on 6 October, declining his application to dispense with security for costs on this appeal in Rafiq v Secretary for Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand.[1] She directed the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 3 November 2014.
[1]Rafiq v Secretary for Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand [2014] NZHC 2064.
While it is doubtful whether Mr Rafiq is able to apply for a review of the Registrar’s decision before that decision has even been made, I am prepared to treat what is before me as such an application.
The Registrar properly considered that security for costs should not be dispensed with if a reasonable and solvent litigant would not proceed with the appeal, having regard to the benefits of bringing the appeal weighed against the costs. She was entitled to consider the sheer volume of unmeritorious proceedings brought by Mr Rafiq as well as the views of a number of Judges, presiding over other litigation brought by him, that Mr Rafiq’s efforts are an abuse of procedure brought to vex and harass the various respondents. She properly concluded it would not be right to require the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs to defend the judgment under challenge without the usual protection as to costs provided by security.[2]
[2]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63 at [31].
She could have added that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying dispensation in this case. Impecuniosity does not suffice. Furthermore, this appeal does not raise an issue of public importance or significance. The application to review is dismissed. Mr Rafiq must pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Razdan Rafiq against the Department of Internal Affairs regarding an order for security for costs. Rafiq, acting in person, sought to review a Registrar's decision that declined his application to be dispensed from providing security for costs in his appeal. The Department of Internal Affairs was represented by A R Longdill and O Klaassen. The appeal was dismissed, and Rafiq was required to pay a sum of $5,880 by way of security for costs by 3 November 2014.

The central legal issue the Court of Appeal had to decide was whether the Registrar's decision to require security for costs was correct. The appeal also considered whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify not requiring security for costs. The Court had to assess the merits of Rafiq's appeal and whether it was an abuse of process. The Court further examined whether the appeal raised any issues of public importance or significance that could warrant dispensation from the requirement of providing security for costs.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court found that the Registrar had correctly applied the relevant principles in determining that security for costs should not be dispensed with. The Court considered the numerous unmeritorious proceedings initiated by Rafiq and the views of various judges who had found his litigation efforts to be vexatious and harassing. The Court concluded that it was not appropriate to require the Department of Internal Affairs to defend the judgment under challenge without the protection of security for costs. The Court also noted that Rafiq's impecuniosity did not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the appeal did not raise any issues of public importance or significance. Therefore, the application to review the Registrar's decision was dismissed, and Rafiq was required to pay the specified sum of security for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established