Rafiq

[2013] NZHC 3440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004585

CIV-2013-404-004586 [2013] NZHC 3440

IN THE MATTER             of applications to review Registrar's decisions

BY  RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant

Hearing:                   (On the papers) Judgment:         17 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

(Review of Registrar's decision declining to refund fees)

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 December 2013 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the

High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to:            Applicant

Re Rafiq [2013] NZHC 3440 [17 December 2013]

[1]     Mr Rafiq seeks to review decisions of the Registrar in both the above proceedings.   In both cases the Registrar refused Mr Rafiq’s second application to refund filing fees he had previously paid.

[2]      In both cases Mr Rafiq had previously filed applications for refunds of filing fees which were declined by the Registrar.  The Registrar’s decision was upheld on review.1

[3]      At the time of those applications Mr Rafiq stated that he was self-employed. Mr Rafiq is now apparently in receipt of a benefit.  On that basis he made his second application for refund of the fees.   The Registrar declined the applications on the basis that the change in circumstances (namely receipt of the benefit) had occurred well after the fees had been paid and indeed after the cases had been disposed of.

[4]      The applications for review are dismissed in both cases.  They are dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) The power to refund fees is contained in reg 23, High Court Fees Regulations 2013. The criteria in reg 23(1)(a), (b) or (c) do not apply in the present case. The Regulation contemplates an application being made in circumstances where an application has not previously been made. In [2013] NZHC 2861 an application for waiver had previously been made. In [2013] NZHC 2860 the Court found the fee would not have been waived if application had been made.

(b)The Regulations  do  not  contemplate successive  applications  being made.

(c)      Mr Rafiq has already applied for refund and had his applications dismissed by the Registrar.  Those decisions were upheld on review previously.     It  is  an  abuse  of  process  to  bring  these  further

applications.

1 [2013] NZHC 2860; and [2013] NZHC 2861.

(d)The  applications  for  review  contain  intemperate,  scandalous  and unacceptable language.

[5]      The Registrar is directed not to accept any more documents from Mr Rafiq on these files.

Venning J