Razdan Rafiq v The Commissioner of New Zealand Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 15/2015
[2015] NZSC 46

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person N M H Whittington and O M Klaassen for Respondent
Judgment:	23 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 22 July 2014 the applicant, Mr Rafiq, applied to the High Court for leave to commence a defamation proceeding against the Commissioner of Police out of time. Mr Rafiq required leave because the allegedly defamatory statement was made in an email sent by a police officer to an employee of the Department of Internal Affairs on 10 March 2008, outside the period in s 4 of the Limitation Act 1950, although there was also reference to a further statement made in a brief of evidence of 10 February 2012 filed with the Human Rights Review Tribunal. In his amended draft statement of claim, Mr Rafiq sought a declaration that the respondent is liable to him in defamation, compensatory damages of $50 million, aggravated damages of $20 million and exemplary damages of $10 million.
Andrews J doubted that the Court had jurisdiction to grant leave given that Mr Rafiq had not applied within six years of the March 2008 statement being made, but went on to consider the merits, particularly given the reference to the February 2012 brief. The Judge refused leave.[1]
[1]Rafiq v The Commissioner of the New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 2837 (Andrews J).
Mr Rafiq filed an appeal against Andrews J’s decision. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal fixed security for costs at $5,880.00. Mr Rafiq sought a review of her decision by a Judge of the Court of Appeal. Harrison J dismissed Mr Rafiq’s application for review.[2] Mr Rafiq now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.
[2]Rafiq v The Commissioner of the New Zealand Police [2015] NZCA 8 (Harrison J).
This Court has set out the proper approach to security for costs in Reekie v Attorney-General.[3] Accordingly, the proposed appeal does not involve any issue of general or public importance but rather involves simply the application of a settled approach to particular facts. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred. In these circumstances, leave must be declined.
[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Razdan Rafiq, who sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal. Rafiq was seeking to commence a defamation proceeding against the Commissioner of New Zealand Police out of time. The High Court had previously refused Mr Rafiq leave to proceed with his claim, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Rafiq should be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The legal issues focused on the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal out of time, the application of the Limitation Act 1950, and the appropriate circumstances in which security for costs should be required.

The Court considered the principles established in Reekie v Attorney-General, which outline the criteria for granting leave to appeal out of time. The Court noted that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of general or public importance but rather involved the application of settled principles to specific facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Court held that the application did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal as it did not involve a novel or significant point of law. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Rafiq was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the Commissioner of New Zealand Police.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in legal proceedings and the stringent criteria that must be met to obtain leave to appeal out of time. The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the need for applicants to demonstrate a compelling reason for not adhering to the statutory deadlines, which was not present in this case. The Court's decision also highlights the application of the principles set out in Reekie v Attorney-General in determining the appropriateness of security for costs in appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established