Rafiq v Latitude Financial Services - [2023] NZHC 1690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-108

[2023] NZHC 1690

BETWEEN
RAZDAN RAFIQ

Plaintiff

AND

LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

First Defendant

AND

BAYCORP (NZ) LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 22 June 2023

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person / respondent

W R Potter for the First Defendant/applicant Y Dong for the Second Defendant/applicant

Judgment:

3 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J (SECURITY FOR COSTS)

This judgment was delivered by me on 03 July 2023 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Mr Rafiq in person
Russell McVeagh, Auckland
W R Potter, Barrister, Auckland

RAFIQ v LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1690 [22 June 2023]

[1] The first and second defendants apply for orders for security as to costs. The applications complement each other, in that the first defendant deals with security for costs for the whole proceeding and the second respondent focuses on its application for security for the summary judgment application.

[2] Mr Rafiq opposes the applications for security as to costs. He does not deny that he is impecunious. However, he says the defendants are taking advantage of his financial circumstances which have been caused by them, and their respective applications for security amount to a “mechanism to avoid scrutiny of its enterprise and thwart those proceedings from advancing to final stage.”

Background

[3] The plaintiff brings a claim by way of summary judgment against the first defendant and second defendant concerning various finance transactions in which he was recorded as the debtor and the steps taken to recover the debts by the first and second defendant. The first defendant is a finance company, and the second defendant is a debt collection company.

[4] Mr Rafiq says he was not the person who applied for the relevant credit and seeks declarations that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for damages and that the defendants have breached the applicable provisions of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, as well as a permanent injunction for the “complete deletion and/or retraction of those debts from the records of those defendants.” The claim also seeks orders for damages totalling $2 million, being $1 million against the defendants jointly as general or compensatory damages as well as aggravating damages of $500,000 and exemplary or punitive damages of $500,000.

[5] The statement of claim and supporting materials that Mr Rafiq has filed are difficult to follow. The statement of claim amounts to a narrative of financial transactions that are the subject of the proceeding.

[6] Insofar as I am able to understand the statement of claim, it alleges that the first defendant “unreasonably and wrongly” accused the defendant of having credit cards,

an account with Noel Leeming and acted in breach of the “applicable Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003”.

[7] In relation to the second defendant the claim refers to an infringement fee under the Land Transport Act 1998 and…

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 Latitude Financial Services 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: [2023] NZHC 1690
Decision Date: 3 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rafiq v Latitude Financial Services was a case heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, where Razdan Rafiq, the plaintiff, brought a claim against Latitude Financial Services Limited and Baycorp (NZ) Limited, the first and second defendants, respectively. Rafiq sought declarations, damages, and a permanent injunction regarding various finance transactions and debt recovery actions. The defendants applied for security as to costs, arguing that Rafiq was impecunious and that the proceedings lacked merit. The court considered the financial circumstances of Rafiq, the merits of the case, and the history of Rafiq’s litigation conduct. Grice J concluded that Rafiq was indeed impecunious and that the proceedings lacked merit. The court granted the applications for security for costs in the sum of $8,000 for the summary judgment application stage for the second defendant and $8,000 for the first defendant immediately for the summary judgment application, with the remaining $19,000 to be paid upon the setting down of the trial. The court also reserved leave for any further applications if necessary. The costs of the proceeding were awarded to the defendants on a 2B basis.

Orders