Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA577/2013
[2013] NZCA 586

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Respondent

Counsel:

Applicant in person
S Kinsler for the Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

27 November 2013 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J
(Application to Review Registrar’s Decision)

The applications to review the Registrar’s decisions refusing to waive security for costs and refusing to allocate a fixture are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The appellant, Razdan Rafiq, has filed two separate applications to review the Registrar’s decisions (a) refusing to waive security for costs, and (b) refusing to allocate a fixture.
The first decision was made on 24 September 2013. For the reasons given by the Registrar, I am satisfied that Mr Rafiq has failed to prove that her decision was not in the interests of justice. His application is based solely on financial impecuniosity. However, he has failed to identify any arguable point of law or any issue of general or public importance which requires waiver.
This Court has no jurisdiction to review a decision by the Registrar not to allocate a fixture on an appeal where an appellant has failed to give security for costs.
Both applications are dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicant, Razdan Rafiq, sought to challenge the Registrar's decision refusing to waive security for costs and to allocate a fixture. The Registrar, under the auspices of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, was the respondent in this appeal. Rafiq, appearing in person, aimed to overturn the decisions made on 24 September 2013. The Court's role was to assess the validity of these decisions and the merits of Rafiq's appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Registrar's decisions were in the interests of justice and whether there was sufficient grounds to warrant a waiver of security for costs and an allocation of a fixture. The Registrar had declined both requests, citing the lack of an arguable point of law or an issue of general or public importance that would necessitate such actions. The Court was also tasked with determining if the Registrar's decision not to allocate a fixture could be reviewed given that Rafiq had not provided the required security for costs.

The Court held that the Registrar's decision was justified and in the interests of justice. Rafiq's application was primarily based on financial hardship, but he failed to demonstrate any substantial legal point or broader public interest that would warrant a waiver. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision not to allocate a fixture when the appellant had not met the requirement to provide security for costs. Consequently, both applications by Rafiq were dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established