RAFIQ V THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER CA116/2014 [2014] NZCA 232
The Court exercised its discretion to vary the earlier order by granting an extension of time to pay security for costs on the condition that if the Supreme Court refuses leave to appeal, the applicant must pay $5,880.00 within 14 days of the Supreme Court's judgment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 232
- Parties
- Applicant: Razdan Rafiq; Respondent: The Privacy Commissioner
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 June 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time to Pay Security for Costs / Court of Appeal Judgment (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Order of 10 April 2014 varied and conditional extension of time granted
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Variation of Orders
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 Privacy Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Pay Security for Costs / Court of Appeal Judgment (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant extension of time to pay security for costs
- 2 Whether an application for leave to the Supreme Court justifies delaying payment of security for costs
- 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice or irreparable harm from an extension
Ratio Decidendi
The Court exercised its discretion to vary the earlier order by granting an extension of time to pay security for costs on the condition that if the Supreme Court refuses leave to appeal, the applicant must pay $5,880.00 within 14 days of the Supreme Court's judgment.
Court Disposition
Order of 10 April 2014 varied and conditional extension of time granted
Orders
- Order of 10 April 2014 is varied.
- Mr Rafiq is granted an extension of time to pay security for costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAFIQ V THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER CA116/2014 [2014] NZCA 232 [9 June 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA116/2014[2014] NZCA 232BETWEEN RAZDAN RAFIQApplicantAND THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONERRespondentCounsel: Applicant in PersonK Evans for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)9 June 2014 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF HARRISON JA The order made on 10 April 2014 is varied.B Mr Rafiq is granted an extension of time to pay security for costs. In the event that the Supreme Court refuses him leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2014, he is ordered to pay the amount of $5,880.00 within 14 days of the date of the Supreme Court judgment.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] On 10 April 2014 I delivered a judgment dismissing Mr Rafiq's application toreview the Registrar's refusal to dispense with payment of security for costs andordered him to pay the sum of $5,880 on or before 1 May 2014.[2] On 26 May 2014, well past the extended date for payment, Mr Rafiq filed an application for extension of time to pay security for costs.1 His grounds are that he is applying for leave to appeal my earlier judgment and "needs to allow the appeal1 Rule 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.process to unfold in the Supreme Court" consistently with justice. Further, there will be no prejudice or irreparable harm to the Privacy Commissioner.[3] On 29 May 2014 the Commissioner filed a memorandum advising that, while he believes Mr Rafiq's application for leave to the Supreme Court is without merit, he does not oppose Mr Rafiq's application for an extension of time providing thatany extension ends "very soon after the Supreme Court issues its decision" on theapplication for leave.[4] In these circumstances I vary the judgment delivered on 10 April 2014. Mr Rafiq is granted an extension of time to pay security for costs. In the event that the Supreme Court refuses him leave to appeal against the 10 April 2014 judgment, he is ordered to pay the amount of $5,880.00 within 14 days of the date of theSupreme Court's judgment.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent