RAFIQ V DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS CA496/2014 [2014] NZCA 501
The Registrar did not err: given the appellant's established pattern of unmeritorious and vexatious litigation, absence of exceptional circumstances, and the rule that impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensation, security for costs of $5,880 was properly required.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 501
- Parties
- Appellant: Razdan Rafiq; Respondent: Department of Internal Affairs
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Review of Registrar's Decision Refusing to Dispense With Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed; security for costs ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Dispensation of Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigation
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
Department of Internal Affairs
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Review of Registrar's Decision Refusing to Dispense With Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs
- 2 Whether impecuniosity amounts to exceptional circumstances to dispense with security
- 3 Whether the appellant's history of unmeritorious proceedings and abuse of process justifies requiring security for costs
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar did not err: given the appellant's established pattern of unmeritorious and vexatious litigation, absence of exceptional circumstances, and the rule that impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensation, security for costs of $5,880 was properly required.
Court Disposition
Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed; security for costs ordered.
Orders
- Application to review dismissed.
- 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
DRAFTRAFIQ V DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS CA496/2014 [2014] NZCA 501 [14 October 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA496/2014[2014] NZCA 501BETWEEN RAZDAN RAFIQAppellantAND DEPARTMENT OF INTERNALAFFAIRSRespondentCounsel: Appellant in personA R Longdill and O Klaassen 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 dispense with 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 8 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 Secretary for Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand.1 She directed the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 3 November 2014.1 Rafiq v Secretary for Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand [2014] NZHC 2064.[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 procedurebrought to vex and harass the various respondents. She properly concluded it would not be right to require the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs to defend the judgment under challenge without the usual protection as to costs provided by security.2[4] 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:Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent2 Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63 at [31].