Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business

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

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

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, the applicant, Mr Rafiq, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed his application to review decisions made by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Registrar had refused to waive security for costs and to allocate a fixture for Mr Rafiq’s appeal against an order for security for costs made against him in the High Court in defamation proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously declined leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. Mr Rafiq then applied for recall of that judgment, asserting that the Supreme Court's decision was in error, but did not provide any further reasons or evidence to support this claim.

The legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to recall the Supreme Court's judgment dismissing Mr Rafiq's leave to appeal. The court had to consider if the recall application provided any new or compelling reasons to reconsider the earlier decision. The primary focus was on whether the application demonstrated an error of law in the original decision or if there were any new developments that warranted a recall.

The Supreme Court found that Mr Rafiq's application for recall did not provide any new or substantiated grounds that would justify recalling the earlier judgment. The court noted that Mr Rafiq's assertions of error were unsubstantiated and did not present any new evidence or legal argument. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed. The court held that without any new, compelling reasons or evidence, there was no basis to recall the earlier decision declining leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established