Rafiq v District Court at Auckland

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA710/2013
[2013] NZCA 585

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND 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 application to review the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Razdan Rafiq, the appellant in this appeal, has filed various applications to review a decision of the Registrar refusing to waive security for costs on this appeal. As the Registrar’s letter dated 14 November 2013 notes, Mr Rafiq’s applications are confusing. Nevertheless the Registrar treated a document filed by Mr Rafiq on 18 October 2013 as an application for that purpose, apparently based on the sole ground of financial impecuniosity.
The Crown opposes the application on the basis that Mr Rafiq has failed to establish that the Registrar’s decision is not in the interests of justice. As Mr Kinsler points out, Mr Rafiq appears to rely solely on his economic circumstances, previous costs awards against him and his recent bankruptcy. Arguably, given his bankruptcy, Mr Rafiq has no standing to pursue this appeal.
However, in any event, I am independently satisfied that Mr Rafiq’s challenge to the Registrar’s decision is unsustainable; and that his appeal has no merit and does not raise any issue of public importance. As Venning J noted in the judgment under appeal:[1]
[44]     Mr Rafiq’s application for judicial review is completely misconceived. The matters he complains of go nowhere near amounting to disclosing a reasonably arguable cause of action against the District Court or the Judges or Registrar of that Court.
[45]     Mr Rafiq’s proceeding is itself frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
[46]     The application for judicial review is struck out.
[47]     In the circumstances there is no need to consider the application for summary judgment or Mr Rafiq’s application to review the Registrar’s decision to decline to allocate a hearing for his summary judgment application in any detail. The application for summary judgment, like the substantial claim was misconceived. Those applications are also dismissed.
[1]Rafiq v Auckland District Court [2013] NZHC 2640.
I am also satisfied that the appeal has no prospects of success whatsoever and that the Registrar correctly exercised her discretion.[2]
[2]Rule 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
The application to review the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Razdan Rafiq, the appellant, against the District Court at Auckland, the respondent. The dispute centred around the Registrar’s refusal to waive security for costs on the appellant's appeal, and the appellant's subsequent applications to review this decision. The appellant, appearing in person, argued that the Registrar’s decision should be reviewed based on his financial impecuniosity, previous costs awards against him, and his recent bankruptcy. The Crown, represented by S Kinsler, opposed the application, asserting that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Registrar’s decision was not in the interests of justice.

The court was required to determine whether the Registrar's decision to refuse to waive security for costs was justified. The central legal issue was whether the appellant's financial situation warranted a review of the Registrar's decision. The court also considered whether the appellant's appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as previously determined by Venning J in the judgment under appeal. The court examined whether the appellant's application to review the Registrar's decision was sustainable and whether the appeal raised any issues of public importance.

The Court of Appeal, through Harrison J, found that the appellant's application to review the Registrar's decision was unsustainable. The court concluded that the appellant had not established a reasonably arguable cause of action against the District Court or its officials. The court reiterated that the appellant's proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Therefore, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court held that the appeal had no prospects of success and that the Registrar correctly exercised her discretion in refusing to waive security for costs. The application to review the Registrar's decision was ultimately dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established