Rafiq v Auckland Transport

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2612

[2024] NZHC 2236

BETWEEN

RAZDAN RAFIQ

Plaintiff

AND

AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

Defendant

Hearing:	5 August 2024
Appearances:	Mr Razdan Rafiq is a self-represented Plaintiff Jade Magrath for the Defendant
Judgment:	23 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment; defendant’s application for security for costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 August 2024 at 3:00pm

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Simpson Grierson (Padraig McNamara/Jade Magrath), Auckland, for the Plaintiff

Copy for:

Mr Razdan Rafiq, Auckland.

RAZDAN RAFIQ v AUCKLAND TRANSPORT [2024] NZHC 2236 [23 August 2024]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

Introduction  [1]

Background  [4]

Application for summary judgment  [11]

Mr Rafiq’s position  [11]

Auckland Transport’s position  [12]

Application for security for costs  [13]

Auckland Transport’s position  [13]
Mr Rafiq’s position  [18]

Legal principles

Application for summary judgment  [19]
Application for security for costs  [22]

Analysis  [30]

Application for summary judgment  [30]

Mr Rafiq has not demonstrated that his claim is unanswerable         [32]
Auckland Transport has an arguable defence  [34]
There are material disputes of fact  [36]

Conclusion in relation to summary judgment application                  [37]

Application for security for costs  [38]

Auckland Transport’s position:  [38]

First Stage: Threshold Test  [38]

Second Stage:  exercise of the Court’s discretion                   [40]
Merits of the claim  [40]
Cause of impecuniosity  [43]
Balancing the interests of justice  [45]
Mr Rafiq’s position  [46]
Conclusion in respect of security for costs application  [48]
Amount of security  [49]
Stay of proceeding  [51]

Result  [52]

Orders  [53]

Introduction

[1]                 The plaintiff in this proceeding, Mr Razdan Rafiq (Mr Rafiq) has applied for summary judgment on his claim against Auckland Transport.

[2]Auckland Transport has applied for security for costs against Mr Rafiq.

[3]                 Auckland Transport opposes Mr Rafiq’s application for summary judgment, and Mr Rafiq opposes Auckland Transport’s application for security for costs. Both applications were heard together on 5 August 2024.

Background

[4]                 In 2017, Mr Rafiq was issued two infringement notices by Auckland Transport, both relating to offences on 12 September 2017.

[5]                 On 15 November 2017, these notices were referred to a debt collection agency, Baycorp.

[6]                 Auckland Transport advises this is the usual process for notices which are unpaid after 28 days of service, and if liability is not denied by way of request for a court hearing.1

[7]                 Mr Rafiq filed a statement of claim and an application for summary judgment both dated 27 October 2023.

[8]                 The substance of Mr Rafiq’s claim is that the notices were referred to Baycorp for collection despite the fact he wished to defend them in the District Court, which is in contravention of due process for these disputes.

[9]                 Mr Rafiq’s claim is made on the basis that Auckland Transport’s actions were contrary to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA), the Land

1      Land Transport (Infringement and…