Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive Mbie and the Privacy Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 19/2014
[2014] NZSC 145

BETWEEN

RAZDAN RAFIQ
Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
First Respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Second Respondent

SC 40/2014
BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S M Kinsler for Respondents SC 19/2014 K E Evans for Respondents SC 40/2014
Judgment:	10 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 16 June 2014, the Court delivered judgment dismissing two applications for leave to appeal by Mr Rafiq against decisions of Harrison J upholding decisions by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal as to security for costs.[1] Mr Rafiq now seeks a recall of the judgment.
[1]Rafiq v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZSC 72.
The points raised by Mr Rafiq are not new, with one exception. The exception is that Mr Rafiq alleges that the Court:
… failed to consider that the review of the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs was not presided by a panel of 3 Judges including the President of the Court of Appeal. This has prejudiced the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
However, there is clear statutory authority for a single Judge of the Court of Appeal to review a decision of the Registrar as to security for costs: see s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908 and rule 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
Accordingly, the application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents SC 19/2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Privacy Commissioner, the applicant, Mr Rafiq, sought a recall of the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing his applications for leave to appeal against decisions upholding security for costs. The first respondent, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the second respondent, the Privacy Commissioner, opposed the application. The case was heard by Elias CJ, William Young, and Arnold JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court erred in dismissing Mr Rafiq’s applications for leave to appeal against the decisions of Harrison J, which upheld the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s decisions regarding security for costs. The primary contention raised by Mr Rafiq was that the review of the registrar’s decision was not presided over by a panel of three judges, including the President of the Court of Appeal, which he argued prejudiced the outcome. The respondents contended that there was statutory authority permitting a single judge of the Court of Appeal to review such decisions.

The court held that the statutory provisions, specifically section 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908 and rule 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, clearly authorized a single judge to review the registrar’s decision on security for costs. Consequently, the court found no merit in Mr Rafiq’s assertion that the lack of a three-judge panel prejudiced the outcome. The application for recall was dismissed, and the previous judgment remained unchanged.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established