Rafiq v Attorney-General

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application by Razdan Rafiq for leave to commence proceedings and to review the Registrar's decision rejecting his documents. Rafiq sought to name several defendants, including the Attorney-General, the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, the Commissioner of Police, and the Auckland Council. The Registrar had rejected the documents because they did not comply with Rule 5.1(1)(a) of the High Court Rules, which requires proceedings to be filed in the place of residence or principal place of business of the first-named defendant. Given that the first defendant is the Attorney-General, the Registry should have been Wellington. The Registrar was correct to reject the documents on that ground, and the application for review was dismissed.

The court had to decide whether Rafiq, who has been a declared vexatious litigant, was entitled to leave to commence proceedings against the various defendants. Leave under section 88B(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is a prima facie ground for the proceeding. The court considered the strength of the evidence required to meet the threshold and noted that the assertions made by the vexatious litigant seeking leave were not to be accepted uncritically. The proposed pleading contained several causes of action against each defendant, but many of them were inadequately particularised, incomprehensible, or clearly incapable of success. The court found that none of the proposed claims reached the requisite threshold for leave under section 88B(2). The application for leave to commence proceedings was therefore refused.

The court concluded that the proceedings that Rafiq wished to bring did not meet the threshold required for leave under section 88B(2). The application was therefore refused. The court dismissed the application for review and refused the application for leave to commence proceedings.