RAFIQ V THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA710/2013 [2013] NZCA 585
The Registrar properly exercised discretion in refusing to waive security for costs because the applicant failed to show that doing so was required in the interests of justice; the appeal is without merit, frivolous and an abuse of process and may be precluded by the applicant's bankruptcy, so the review is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZCA 585
- Parties
- Applicant: Razdan Rafiq; Respondent: The District Court at Auckland
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Review Registrar's Decision (security for Costs) on Appeal / On the Papers; Judgment Dismissing Review Application
- Outcome
- Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Standing, Frivolous Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Summary Dismissal
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
Applicant
The District Court at Auckland
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application to Review Registrar's Decision (security for Costs) on Appeal / On the Papers; Judgment Dismissing Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar erred in refusing to waive security for costs
- 2 Whether the appellant has standing to pursue the appeal given recent bankruptcy
- 3 Whether the appeal has any prospects of success or raises matters of public importance
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar properly exercised discretion in refusing to waive security for costs because the applicant failed to show that doing so was required in the interests of justice; the appeal is without merit, frivolous and an abuse of process and may be precluded by the applicant's bankruptcy, so the review is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.
Orders
- Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DRAFTRAFIQ V THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA710/2013 [2013] NZCA 585IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA710/2013[2013] NZCA 585BETWEEN RAZDAN RAFIQApplicantAND THE DISTRICT COURT ATAUCKLANDRespondentCounsel: Applicant in personS Kinsler for the RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)27 November 2013 at 2.15 pmJUDGMENT OF HARRISON J(Application to Review Registrar's Decision)The application to review the Registrar's decision is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Razdan Rafiq, the appellant in this appeal, has filed various applications to review a decision of the Registrar refusing to waive security for costs on this appeal.As the Registrar's letter dated 14 November 2013 notes, Mr Rafiq's applications are confusing. Nevertheless the Registrar treated a document filed by Mr Rafiq on 18 October 2013 as an application for that purpose, apparently based on the sole ground of financial impecuniosity.[2] The Crown opposes the application on the basis that Mr Rafiq has failed toestablish that the Registrar's decision is not in the interests of justice. As Mr Kinsler points out, Mr Rafiq appears to rely solely on his economic circumstances, previouscosts awards against him and his recent bankruptcy. Arguably, given his bankruptcy, Mr Rafiq has no standing to pursue this appeal.[3] However, in any event, I am independently satisfied that Mr Rafiq's challenge to the Registrar's decision is unsustainable; and that his appeal has nomerit and does not raise any issue of public importance. As Venning J noted in the judgment under appeal:1[44] Mr Rafiq's application for judicial review is completelymisconceived. The matters he complains of go nowhere near amounting to disclosing a reasonably arguable cause of action against the District Court or the Judges or Registrar of that Court.[45] Mr Rafiq's proceeding is itself frivolous, vexatious and an abuse ofprocess.[46] The application for judicial review is struck out.[47] In the circumstances there is no need to consider the application forsummary judgment or Mr Rafiq's application to review the Registrar'sdecision to decline to allocate a hearing for his summary judgment application in any detail. The application for summary judgment, like the substantial claim was misconceived. Those applications are also dismissed.[4] I am also satisfied that the appeal has no prospects of success whatsoever and that the Registrar correctly exercised her discretion.2[5] The application to review the Registrar's decision is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent1 Rafiq v Auckland District Court [2013] NZHC 2640.2 Rule 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.