Rafiq

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC UR 30/2025
[2025] NZSC 124

RE	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant

Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	25 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J

The application for recall of my judgment of 27 August 2025 (Re Rafiq [2025] NZSC 110) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

On 3 July 2025 Mr Rafiq filed five notices of application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 11 June 2025.[1] He also applied for fee waivers.
[1]Rafiq v Secretary for Internal Affairs [2025] NZCA 229 (Thomas and Woolford JJ) [CA judgment].
Mr Rafiq’s application for fee waivers was declined by the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 18 July 2025. Mr Rafiq subsequently applied for review of this decision.
The review application was dismissed by me on 27 August 2025.[2] Mr Rafiq applies for recall of that judgment.

Submissions

[2]Re Rafiq [2025] NZSC 110.

Mr Rafiq submits that his review application should not have been dismissed. In his submission, the proposed appeal has substantial merit and he cannot pay the filing fees as he is dependent on a benefit for his living expenses. He also submits that his review application should have been determined by a panel of five judges including the Chief Justice.

Assessment

Mr Rafiq’s submission that the review application should have been heard by a panel of five judges is not correct. Under s 160(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, a person who disagrees with a decision of a registrar or deputy registrar concerning fees may apply for the decision to be reviewed by a single judge. There is no further right of review against that judge’s decision.[3]
[3]Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZSC 127 at [4].
Mr Rafiq’s application does not meet the high threshold necessary for a recall application to be granted. A judgment will only be recalled in exceptional circumstances, being those identified in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2), as approved by this Court in Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2).[4]

Result

[4]Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2] citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633. See also Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 115 at [20].

The application for recall of my judgment of 27 August 2025 (Re Rafiq [2025] NZSC 110) is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Razdan Rafiq, who sought recall of a judgment dismissing his application for review of a decision declining his request for a fee waiver. Rafiq had previously filed five notices of application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment and requested fee waivers. The Deputy Registrar declined his application for fee waivers, and Rafiq subsequently sought review of this decision. Glazebrook J dismissed the review application on 27 August 2025, and Rafiq now seeks recall of that judgment. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judgment dismissing the review application should be recalled. Rafiq argued that his review application should not have been dismissed as the proposed appeal had substantial merit and he could not afford the filing fees as he relied on a benefit for his living expenses. He further argued that his review application should have been determined by a panel of five judges, including the Chief Justice.

The court examined Rafiq's submissions and found that his application for review should not have been dismissed, as there was no right of review against the decision of a single judge under section 160(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The court also noted that the application for recall did not meet the high threshold necessary for such applications to be granted, as only exceptional circumstances would warrant recall of a judgment. The court referred to the precedents set out in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) and Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) to determine the circumstances under which a judgment may be recalled.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Rafiq's application for recall of the judgment dismissing his application for review of the decision declining his request for fee waivers. The court found that Rafiq's arguments did not meet the threshold for recall, and the dismissal of his review application was justified. The court upheld the earlier judgment and did not grant the recall application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established