[1] Mr Rafiq sues Meredith Connell for defamation. At relevant times one of the partners of Meredith Connell was the Crown Solicitor for Auckland. The firm prosecutes on behalf of the Crown and it also carries out work for a number of government departments. That means that in the course of their work, the lawyers in Meredith Connell make many defamatory statements about other people. They say that other people commit the most dreadful crimes and act in other ways that would draw the disapproval of members of society. Of course, these lawyers would not be doing their job properly if they did not. Generally, Meredith Connell is not exposed to claims for defamation, because in carrying out their work the lawyers make defamatory statements on occasions which the law regards as privileged.

[2] In this case Mr Rafiq is testing the limits of privilege. He is suing Meredith

Connell for five matters generally:

(a) Statements made by Meredith Connell in a proceeding between Mr Rafiq and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.1

(b) Statements made in a prosecution against Mr Rafiq.2

(c) The publication of a report of the judgment of Priestley J in Mr Rafiq’s claim against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

(d) Communications between Meredith Connell’s IT manager and the

Police.

(e) An email sent by one of the partners of Meredith Connell to Mr Rafiq on 20 March 2013 which was copied to other lawyers in Meredith
Connell.

1 Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment [2013] NZHC
1134.
2 Police v Rafiq (aka Khan) DC Auckland, CRI-2011-004-14731, 3 September 2012.

[3] Mr Rafiq seeks compensatory damages of $3m, aggravated damages of $1m and exemplary damages of $1m.

[4] Initially, Mr Rafiq applied for summary judgment. In response, Meredith Connell applied to strike out Mr Rafiq’s claim. Venning J directed that Meredith Connell’s strike out application was to be heard before Mr Rafiq’s summary judgment application. Today, I am dealing only with the strike out application.

[5] In addition to applying to strike out Mr Rafiq’s statement of claim, Meredith Connell asks for security for costs. It also asks for a direction that the Registrar not accept the filing of any documents in this proceeding that contain abusive material or that otherwise do not comply with the High Court Rules.

[6] Mr Rafiq does not have a lawyer. He has so far filed four statements of claim, the last of them on 27 June…

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.

Continue reading Rafiq v Meredith Connell

Details

AGLC: Rafiq v Meredith Connell [2014] NZHC 1597
Case: [2014] NZHC 1597
Decision Date: 2 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Rafiq, a plaintiff in person, brought a defamation action against Meredith Connell, a firm of lawyers. The court had to decide whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action against Meredith Connell. The court also had to decide whether the proceeding was vexatious and an abuse of process. The court found that Mr Rafiq’s pleadings were amateurish and did not show any reasonable cause of action against Meredith Connell. The firm had defences of absolute privilege, qualified privilege, common law privilege and honest opinion. The court found that Mr Rafiq had not shown any arguable way around these defences. The proceeding was also vexatious and an abuse of process. The court struck out Mr Rafiq’s statement of claim in its entirety. The court also ordered that Mr Rafiq pay Meredith Connell costs on a 2B basis with an uplift of 50 per cent plus disbursements approved by the Registrar.

Orders