ATTORNEY-GENERAL v RAFIQ [2015] NZHC 1153

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v RAFIQ [2015] NZHC 1153 [27 May 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2014-404-2711[2015] NZHC 1153BETWEEN ATTORNEY-GENERALApplicantAND RAZDAN RAFIQRespondentHearing: 27 May 2015Appearances: K Muller for ApplicantRespondent in personJudgment: 27 May 2015JUDGMENT OF WYLIE JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Wylieon 27 May 2015 at 2.00pmPursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarIntroduction[1] In October 2014 the applicant – the Attorney-General – filed a statement of claim seeking an order under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908.[2] Mr Rafiq filed a number of interlocutory applications. They were opposed and I dealt with them in an oral judgment given on 26 March 2015. Inter alia, I directed Mr Rafiq to file a statement of defence on or before Friday 24 April 2015.[3] Mr Rafiq did file a statement of defence on 24 April 2015. The proceeding was then allocated a first case management conference, so that a timetable could be put in place to bring it on for hearing.[4] The conference was called before me in chambers this morning. Mr Rafiq appeared in person. Ms Muller appeared for the Attorney-General.[5] Ms Muller had prepared a memorandum outlining the various stages that the Attorney-General submitted should be taken and proposing a timetable. Mr Rafiq confirmed that he had received that memorandum. Rather surprisingly, he advised me that he wished to withdraw his statement of defence, and that he consented to the making of an order under s 88B of the Judicature Act.Decision[6] After discussions with Mr Rafiq and Ms Muller, and with their agreement, I ruled that we were sitting in open Court. Mr Rafiq formally withdrew his statement of defence. He accepted the allegations contained in the statement of claim, and requested that I should make an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s 88B of the Judicature Act.[7] I explained the effect of such an order to him. I offered him the opportunity to seek legal advice. He declined that offer. He was adamant that he wanted me to make an order, and quickly, so that he could proceed to file an application for leave with the Court forthwith.[8] These are civil proceedings. Mr Rafiq has withdrawn his statement of defence. He does not dispute the allegations contained in the statement of claim. Rather he invites me to make the order sought by the Attorney-General. In the circumstances, there is no need to proceed to formal proof.[9] I have read the statement of claim. It is no longer disputed. I am satisfied that Mr Rafiq has persistently, and without reasonable ground, instituted vexatious legal proceedings, in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Mr Rafiq has been given the opportunity of being heard in this proceeding. He does not wish to take advantage of that opportunity. He does not oppose the order sought. Indeed he invites it.[10] Accordingly, I make an order under s 88B of the Judicature Act. No civil proceeding shall, without the leave of this Court, or a Judge of this Court, be instituted by Mr Rafiq in any court. Any civil proceeding instituted by Mr Rafiq in any court before the making of this order, shall not be continued by him without such leave.Costs[11] Ms Muller did not seek, and I do not make, any order as to costs._________________________Wylie JSolicitors:Crown Law, WellingtonCopy to R Rafiq