Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs

Case [2015] NZSC 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC  121/2014
[2015] NZSC 11
BETWEEN

RAZDAN RAFIQ
Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF NEW ZEALAND
Second Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Third Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Fourth Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Fifth Respondent

Court:

McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in Person
N Whittington  and O Klaassen for Respondents 

Judgment:

20 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay are dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

  1. Mr Rafiq seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Harrison J dismissing his applications for a stay and for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to dispense with security for costs and ordering him to pay security for costs on or before 10 November 2014.[1]

  2. The principles applicable to dispensing with security for costs in the Court of Appeal were addressed by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[2]  Harrison J applied them in this case in much the same way as they were applied in the decision that is the subject of another application for leave on which judgment has recently been delivered.[3]  There is no error of principle or law in the present application.  Nor does any new question of general or public importance arise.  There is also no risk of a miscarriage of justice.  Leave to appeal must accordingly be refused.  The associated application for a stay on Harrison J’s decision lapses so that is also dismissed.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondents


Details
AGLC
Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs [2015] NZSC 11
Case
[2015] NZSC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rafiq, an applicant, sought leave to appeal against the decision of Harrison J, who dismissed his applications for a stay and review concerning the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Registrar had refused to dispense with security for costs and ordered Rafiq to pay the security for costs by a specified date. The primary respondents included the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, the Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. The legal issues at hand primarily revolved around the principles governing the dispensation of security for costs in the Court of Appeal and whether there existed any errors in principle or law in the application process. The Court was required to determine whether there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice and whether any new questions of general or public importance arose from the case.

The Court found that the principles applicable to dispensing with security for costs, as addressed in Reekie v Attorney-General, were correctly applied by Harrison J. The reasoning in this case mirrored that in another recent decision where the Court had similarly dismissed an application for leave to appeal. The Court concluded that there was no error of principle or law in the present application and that no new question of general or public importance had arisen. Additionally, there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and, by extension, the associated application for a stay on Harrison J’s decision.

In summary, the Court upheld the decision of Harrison J and dismissed both the application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay. The Court further ordered Rafiq to pay costs amounting to $2,500 to the first respondent. This decision reinforced the principles established in Reekie v Attorney-General and clarified the legal framework for the dispensation of security for costs in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.