Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 134/2013
[2014] NZSC 7

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:	19 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision made on 27 November 2013 by Harrison J[1] in which he dismissed applications by the applicant to review decisions made by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing (a) to waive security for costs and (b) to allocate a fixture for his appeal. The underlying appeal to the Court of Appeal is primarily in respect of an order for security for costs made against him by the High Court where he is suing the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for defamation. This is in respect of third-party supplied information about the applicant which is held by the Ministry. From the submissions he has made in support of the application for leave to appeal, he is seeking $999m (for what seem to be compensatory and perhaps aggravated damages) and another $999m for punitive damages. So the total amount claimed is just short of two billion dollars.
[1]Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZCA 586.
In October and November last year, the applicant attempted to file many applications in this Court challenging decisions by registrars of the High Court and Court of Appeal, interlocutory judgments given in the High Court and leave decisions by the Court of Appeal. Some, but not all, of these were associated with the defamation proceedings. In none of these cases did this Court have jurisdiction and the applications were rejected by the Registrar. The applicant also sent to the Court what appears to be the service copy of High Court proceedings against this Court, although we understand that the High Court registry has refused to accept the original for filing. His correspondence to the Registrar has been abusive to say the least.
It is apparent from the judgment of Priestley J[2] ordering security for costs (which is the subject of the appeal to the Court of Appeal) and other judicial minutes that the applicant has conducted the proceedings in the High Court in a way which is very similar to his dealings with this Court. Priestley J referred to his conduct as “insulting and certainly in contempt”. On the basis of material which he has supplied to the Court, it is apparent that he has been ordered to pay costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Commissioner of Police in respect of proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal which are related to the defamation proceedings. It is at least implicit in his submissions that he will not be paying those costs. He has also made it clear that he does not intend to apply for legal aid.
[2]Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry Of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 1134.
On the basis of the material to which we have referred, we see no issue of public or general importance in respect of the proposed appeal and also no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application from Razdan Rafiq, who sought leave to appeal a decision made by Harrison J on 27 November 2013. The initial matter pertains to an order for security for costs made against Rafiq by the High Court in his defamation case against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Rafiq, representing himself, sought to review decisions by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to refuse to waive security for costs and to allocate a fixture for his appeal. He is seeking a total of almost two billion dollars in damages. The court had previously dealt with numerous applications from Rafiq that were deemed to lack jurisdiction, and his conduct in the proceedings has been noted as abusive and contemptuous.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was an issue of public or general importance in respect of the proposed appeal, and if there was an appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered the nature of Rafiq's conduct throughout the proceedings, including his dealings with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, as well as his refusal to pay costs ordered by other courts. Based on the evidence presented, the Supreme Court found no issue of public or general importance and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was grounded in the material presented by the parties, including the conduct of the applicant throughout the proceedings. The court highlighted the history of unsuccessful applications and the contemptuous nature of Rafiq's dealings with the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had been ordered to pay costs in other proceedings but had not done so, and had made it clear that he would not seek legal aid. The Supreme Court determined that these factors did not warrant the granting of leave to appeal.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court found no issue of public or general importance and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice, based on the evidence presented and the conduct of the applicant throughout the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established