Rafiq v Attorney-General - [2014] NZHC 2294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-002477 [2014] NZHC 2294

IN THE MATTER
of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights

Act 1990

AND IN THE MATTER

of declaratory relief

BETWEEN

RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Judgment:

22 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 September 2014 at 11.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the
High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Copy to: Plaintiff

RAFIQ v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 2294 [22 September 2014]

[1] This proceeding was referred to in the decision of this Court in [2014] NZHC

2291.

[2] As the Court said in that decision on a review of the Registrar’s decision:1

These proceedings are based on the Registrar’s referral of the first set of proposed defamation proceedings against Meredith Connell to a Judge for review.

Mr Rafiq pleads that on 8 March [sic]2 2014 the Registrar referred proceedings to a Judge for directions for acceptance even though the application substantially complied with High Court Rules. He seeks a declaration of breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and exemplary damages in the sum of $1 million.

For the reasons given above, the Registrar was quite entitled to seek the direction of a Judge of this Court. Mr Rafiq’s right is to seek review of the Registrar’s decision, which he has done. The conclusion I have drawn as to the nature of the proceedings confirms the Registrar’s decision was correct.

It follows that these proceedings are also an abuse of process.

[3] For those reasons and the further following reasons identified in the review decision it is proper to strike out these proceeding in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court:

[11] … [w]hile the documents may comply with the basic requirements of the High Court Rules in relation to form the Court retains an inherent jurisdiction pursuant to which it has a duty to strike out pleadings that are an abuse of process.

[12] As Lord Diplock said in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West
Midlands Police [1982] AC 529:3

My Lords, this is a case about abuse of the process of the High Court. It concerns the inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people. The circumstances in which abuse of process can arise are very varied; … It would, in my view, be most unwise if this House were to use this occasion to say anything that might be taken as limiting to fixed categories the kinds of

1 Re…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rafiq v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2294
Decision Date: 22 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand in Auckland heard the case of Rafiq v Attorney General of New Zealand. Rafiq sought a declaration of breach of section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and exemplary damages of $1 million. The case was based on the Registrar's referral of proposed defamation proceedings against Meredith Connell. Rafiq claimed that the Registrar referred the proceedings to a judge for directions for acceptance even though the application substantially complied with High Court Rules. The court needed to decide whether the referral was proper and if the proceedings were an abuse of process.

The court examined the inherent jurisdiction to strike out pleadings that are an abuse of process. It considered the comments of Lord Diplock in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police and the approach confirmed by the Supreme Court in Chamberlains v Lai. The court found that the proceedings were properly categorised as an abuse of the process of the Court as they were manifestly unfair to the proposed defendants and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right thinking people. The court also noted Rafiq's intention to file vexatious proceedings to clog the workings of the Court and harass the defendants.

The court struck out the proceedings in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, confirming that the Registrar's decision was correct. The court emphasized the importance of the right to justice under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, but also noted that it did not permit Rafiq to act in the way he sought. The court found that the resources of the Court were limited, and genuine litigants' cases were delayed because of the time and resources applied to deal with these unmeritorious proceedings of Rafiq.

Orders