Rafiq v Mediaworks TV Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA474/2014
[2014] NZCA 499

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Appellant
AND	MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED First Respondent
AND	MI9 NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in person
B Thomson for Respondents

Judgment:

(On the papers)

14 October 2014 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

AThe application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is dismissed.
BThe appellant is to pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 27 October 2014.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 21 August 2014 the appellant, Razdan Rafiq, pre-emptively applied to review a decision made by the Registrar on 22 September, declining his application to dispense with security for costs on this appeal in Rafiq v MediaWorks.[1] She directed the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 20 October 2014.
[1]Rafiq v MediaWorks TV Ltd [2014] NZHC 1699.
While it is doubtful whether Mr Rafiq is able to apply for a review of the Registrar’s decision before that decision has even been made, I am prepared to treat what is before me as such an application.
The Registrar properly considered that security for costs should not be dispensed with if a reasonable and solvent litigant would not proceed with the appeal, having regard to the benefits of bringing the appeal weighed against the costs. In particular, she correctly determined there were no exceptional circumstances justifying dispensation. Impecuniosity does not suffice. Furthermore, this appeal does not raise an issue of public importance or significance.
The Registrar was also entitled to give weight to the conclusions of Faire J, whose judgment is the subject of Mr Rafiq’s underlying claim, that his application to seek summary judgment against MediaWorks is flawed, unlikely to succeed and overall a weak application at best. She was also entitled to consider the fact that Mr Rafiq has chosen not to apply for legal aid (despite claiming impecuniosity), which would have seen his claim subjected to assessments based on merit and costs against benefits.
I am independently satisfied that it would not be right to require MediaWorks to defend the judgment under challenge without the usual protection as to costs provided by security.[2] The application to review is dismissed. Mr Rafiq must pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 27 October 2014.
[2]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63 at [31].

Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Rafiq v Mediaworks TV Limited was heard. The appellant, Razdan Rafiq, sought to appeal a decision made by the Registrar of the High Court which had refused his application to dispense with security for costs in his appeal against Mediaworks TV Limited and MI9 New Zealand Limited. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Registrar's decision was correct in requiring Mr Rafiq to provide security for costs before proceeding with his appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the Registrar appropriately exercised her discretion in requiring security for costs. The Court held that the Registrar had correctly exercised her discretion by taking into account several factors. These included the merits of the appeal, the impecuniosity of the appellant, and the overall strength of the appellant's application. The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify dispensing with security for costs, and that the appeal did not raise issues of public importance or significance. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant had not applied for legal aid, despite claiming impecuniosity, which would have subjected the claim to merit-based assessments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Registrar's decision and dismissed the appellant's application to review. Consequently, Mr Rafiq was required to pay the sum of $5,880.00 as security for costs by 27 October 2014. This decision underscored the importance of the principle that parties to litigation should bear the costs of their litigation, and that the Court should not require respondents to defend appeals without adequate protection against potential costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established