RAZDAN RAFIQ V COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA495/2014 [2014] NZCA 500
The Registrar's refusal to dispense with security for costs was rightly upheld because, given the appellant's history of unmeritorious proceedings, the slim prospects of success and the absence of exceptional circumstances, a reasonable litigant would not proceed without security; accordingly security of $5,880 was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 500
- Parties
- Appellant: Razdan Rafiq; Respondent: Commissioner of New Zealand Police
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (review of Registrar's Interlocutory Decision) / Review of Registrar's Decision on Security for Costs (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application to review dismissed; Registrar's decision upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Dispensation From Security, Abuse of Process, Impecuniosity, Public Interest
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Razdan Rafiq
Appellant
Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (review of Registrar's Interlocutory Decision) / Review of Registrar's Decision on Security for Costs (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar's refusal to dispense with security for costs should be reviewed and set aside
- 2 Whether the appellant's impecuniosity constitutes exceptional circumstances warranting dispensation
- 3 Whether the appellant's history of unmeritorious or vexatious litigation and the slim prospects of success justify requiring security
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar's refusal to dispense with security for costs was rightly upheld because, given the appellant's history of unmeritorious proceedings, the slim prospects of success and the absence of exceptional circumstances, a reasonable litigant would not proceed without security; accordingly security of $5,880 was properly required to protect the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application to review dismissed; Registrar's decision upheld.
Orders
- Appellant to pay $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DRAFTRAZDAN RAFIQ V COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA495/2014 [2014] NZCA 500 [14 October 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA495/2014[2014] NZCA 500BETWEEN RAZDAN RAFIQAppellantAND COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALANDPOLICERespondentCounsel: Appellant in personA Todd for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)14 October 2014 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF HARRISON J(Review of Registrar's Decision)A The application to review the Registrar's decision refusing to dispensewith security for costs is dismissed.B The appellant is to pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] On 5 September 2014 the appellant, Razdan Rafiq, pre-emptively applied to review a decision made by the Registrar on 6 October, declining his application to dispense with security for costs on this appeal in Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police.1 She directed the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 3 November 2014.1 Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 2074.[2] While it is doubtful whether Mr Rafiq is able to apply for a review of theRegistrar's decision before that decision has even been made, I am prepared to treat what is before me as such an application.[3] The Registrar properly considered that security for costs should not be dispensed with if a reasonable and solvent litigant would not proceed with the appeal, having regard to the benefits of bringing the appeal weighed against the costs. She was entitled to consider the sheer volume of unmeritorious proceedings brought by Mr Rafiq as well as the views of a number of Judges, presiding over other litigation brought by him, that Mr Rafiq's efforts are an abuse of procedure brought to vex and harass the various respondents.2[4] The Registrar was also entitled to consider the views of Thomas J in thejudgment under appeal that the prospect of success of Mr Rafiq's claim is slim.3 The Registrar properly concluded it would not be right to require the Commissioner of New Zealand Police to defend the judgment under challenge without the usual protection as to costs provided by security.4[5] She could have added that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying dispensation in this case. Impecuniosity does not suffice. Furthermore, this appeal does not raise an issue of public importance or significance. The application to review is dismissed. Mr Rafiq must pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Auckland for Respondent2 This factor may justify closer consideration by the Solicitor-General.3 At [23].4 Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63 at [31].