RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT CA116/2013 [2014] NZCA 137
The Registrar did not err: impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensing with security for costs, no exceptional circumstances or public importance were established, and the appeal lacks merit/prospects of success; therefore security for costs of $5,880 is required.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 137
- Parties
- Appellant: Razdan Rafiq; Respondent: The Privacy Commissioner
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 April 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Review Registrar's Decision Refusing to Dispense With Security for Costs / Court of Appeal Determination on Review (judgment on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application to review dismissed; direction for security for costs upheld
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Dispensation From Security, Impecuniosity, Prospects of Success, Exceptional Circumstances
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
The Privacy Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application to Review Registrar's Decision Refusing to Dispense With Security for Costs / Court of Appeal Determination on Review (judgment on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs
- 2 Whether impecuniosity alone suffices to waive security for costs
- 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify dispensation
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar did not err: impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensing with security for costs, no exceptional circumstances or public importance were established, and the appeal lacks merit/prospects of success; therefore security for costs of $5,880 is required.
Court Disposition
Application to review dismissed; direction for security for costs upheld
Orders
- Application to review dismissed
- Appellant to pay $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 1 May 2014
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT CA116/2013 [2014] NZCA 137 [10 April 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA116/2014 [2014] NZCA 137BETWEEN RAZDAN RAFIQAppellantAND THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONERRespondentCounsel: Appellant in PersonK Evans for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)10 April 2014 at 10.00 amJUDGMENT OF HARRISON JA 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 1 May 2014.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] On 31 March 2014 the appellant, Razdan Rafiq, applied to review a decision made by the Registrar on 18 March 2014 (erroneously dated 2013), declining his application to dispense with security for costs on this appeal. She directed that the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 15 April 2014.[2] The grounds for the Registrar's direction were that Mr Rafiq had failed to establish it was in the interests of justice that costs be waived. In particular she was not satisfied that there were any exceptional circumstances justifying dispensation.Impecuniosity alone does not suffice. Furthermore, the appeal does not raise an issue of public importance or significance.[3] The Registrar also gave weight to the unequivocal conclusion of Lang J, whose judgment is the subject of Mr Rafiq's appeal, that his application to pursue a claim against the Privacy Commissioner lacked merit and it would be wrong to expose the Commissioner to the inevitable costs of defending a proceeding without any prospects of success.[4] Mr Rafiq has requested that his application be referred to Harrison J for determination to enable the initiation of a further appeal to the Supreme Court.[5] Mr Rafiq has failed to establish that the Registrar erred. Additionally I am independently satisfied that the appeal has no merit or prospects of success. The application to review is dismissed. Mr Rafiq is to pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 1 May 2014.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent