Rafiq

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Razdan Rafiq, who sought recall of a judgment dismissing his application for review of a decision declining his request for a fee waiver. Rafiq had previously filed five notices of application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment and requested fee waivers. The Deputy Registrar declined his application for fee waivers, and Rafiq subsequently sought review of this decision. Glazebrook J dismissed the review application on 27 August 2025, and Rafiq now seeks recall of that judgment. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judgment dismissing the review application should be recalled. Rafiq argued that his review application should not have been dismissed as the proposed appeal had substantial merit and he could not afford the filing fees as he relied on a benefit for his living expenses. He further argued that his review application should have been determined by a panel of five judges, including the Chief Justice.

The court examined Rafiq's submissions and found that his application for review should not have been dismissed, as there was no right of review against the decision of a single judge under section 160(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The court also noted that the application for recall did not meet the high threshold necessary for such applications to be granted, as only exceptional circumstances would warrant recall of a judgment. The court referred to the precedents set out in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) and Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) to determine the circumstances under which a judgment may be recalled.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Rafiq's application for recall of the judgment dismissing his application for review of the decision declining his request for fee waivers. The court found that Rafiq's arguments did not meet the threshold for recall, and the dismissal of his review application was justified. The court upheld the earlier judgment and did not grant the recall application.