Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 117/2014
[2015] NZSC 10

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person N Whittington and O Klaassen for Respondent
Judgment:	20 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rafiq seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Harrison J dismissing his application for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to dispense with security for costs and ordering him to pay security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.[1]
[1]Rafiq v Department of Internal Affairs [2014] NZCA 501 (Harrison J).
Harrison J held that the Registrar 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”.[2] He held that the conclusion that it would not be right to require the respondent to defend the proceedings without the usual protection of security for costs was warranted.
[2]At [3].
The principles applicable to dispensing with security for costs in the Court of Appeal were addressed by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[3] Harrison J’s approach is generally consistent with those principles.[4] There is no departure that raises any new issue of general or public importance.
[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.
[4]See Reekie at [35].
Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs involves Mr Rafiq, the applicant, seeking leave to appeal against a decision by Harrison J, who dismissed his application for review of a decision by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Registrar had refused to dispense with the requirement for Mr Rafiq to provide security for costs in his legal proceedings against the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and had ordered him to pay this security by a specified date. The primary issue before the Supreme Court of New Zealand was whether Mr Rafiq should be granted leave to appeal against Harrison J's decision. The Court needed to determine if the decision contained any new issues of general or public importance or if there was any departure from the principles established in previous case law, specifically the Reekie v Attorney-General case.

The Court examined Harrison J's reasoning and found it to be consistent with the principles outlined in the Reekie v Attorney-General case. Harrison J had considered the substantial number of unmeritorious cases brought by Mr Rafiq, as well as the opinions of several judges who had presided over other litigation involving him, indicating that his actions were an abuse of procedure intended to harass the respondents. Based on this, Harrison J concluded that it was appropriate to require Mr Rafiq to provide security for costs. The Supreme Court found no departure from established principles that warranted granting leave to appeal, as the case did not introduce any new issues of general or public importance.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Rafiq's application for leave to appeal, and he was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the respondent. The Court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the responsibility of litigants to ensure their claims are well-founded to avoid unnecessary burden on the judicial system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established