Rafiq

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA495/2014
[2014] NZCA 500

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Appellant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in person
A Todd 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 5 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 Commissioner of New Zealand Police.[1] She directed the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 3 November 2014.
[1]Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 2074.
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.[2]
[2]This factor may justify closer consideration by the Solicitor-General.
The Registrar was also entitled to consider the views of Thomas J in the judgment under appeal that the prospect of success of Mr Rafiq’s claim is slim.[3] The Registrar properly concluded it would not be right to require the Commissioner of New Zealand Police to defend the judgment under challenge without the usual protection as to costs provided by security.[4]
[3]At [23].
[4]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:
Crown Law Office, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Razdan Rafiq sought to appeal the refusal of a decision to waive the requirement for security for costs in his ongoing case against the Commissioner of New Zealand Police. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the Registrar's decision to deny Rafiq's application to dispense with security for costs. The central legal issue was whether the Registrar was correct in requiring Rafiq to provide security for costs, given the nature of the appeal and Rafiq's history of litigation. The Court of Appeal examined the merits of the appeal, considering the volume of unmeritorious proceedings brought by Rafiq and the views of various judges who had previously described his litigation efforts as an abuse of procedure.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Registrar's decision was justified. The court held that it was reasonable to require Rafiq to provide security for costs, considering the slim prospects of success of his appeal and the history of unmeritorious litigation. The court found that the Registrar properly balanced the benefits of allowing the appeal against the potential costs to the respondent, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted dispensing with the security requirement. As a result, the application to review the Registrar's decision was dismissed, and Rafiq was required to pay $5,880.00 as security for costs by 3 November 2014.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established