Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business

Case •

[2014] NZSC 104

•

6 August 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC134/2013
[2014] NZSC 104
BETWEEN

RAZDAN RAFIQ
Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Respondent
Court:

Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person
W N Fotherby for Respondent

Judgment:

6 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of judgment is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

  1. The applicant applies for recall of a judgment of the Court dated 19 February 2014.  In that judgment the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which Harrison J on 27 November 2013 dismissed applications by Mr Rafiq to review decisions made by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.[1]   Those decisions were a refusal to waive security for costs and to allocate a fixture for Mr Rafiq’s intended appeal against an order for security for costs made against him in the High Court[2] in proceedings brought by Mr Rafiq against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for defamation. 

    [1]Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZCA 586.

    [2]Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 1134 (Priestley J).

  2. In the decision of 19 February 2014,[3] the panel of the Court dealing with the leave application (Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ) considered there was no issue of public or general importance in respect of the proposed appeal against the security for costs ordered in the Court of Appeal and no appearance of miscarriage of justice.

    [3]Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZSC 7.

  3. In the present application for recall of the judgment, Mr Rafiq raises no grounds which would justify recall of the judgment.  He asserts, without further reasons, that the decision of the Court was in error and says that the “allegations that are subject matter of this proceeding are presently being shared with other departments and agencies and this action needs to end”.  No substantiation for the assertion that the Court of Appeal erred is provided by way of elaboration.

  4. No basis for recall is made out.  The application is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0