w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Razdan Rafiq v/s The Director Of The Civil Aviation Authority Of New Zealand


Company & Directors' Information:- A K AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200MH2007PTC176382

Company & Directors' Information:- S V V AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200KA2008PTC046264

Company & Directors' Information:- S R C AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071383

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND C AVIATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013KA2006PTC039002

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040DL2012PTC234038

Company & Directors' Information:- AVIATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63033DL1996PTC077267

Company & Directors' Information:- S K AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1999PTC089940

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND M AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35999KA2021PTC143523

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35300KA2007PTC043583

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. INDIA AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U62100DL2006PTC153980

Company & Directors' Information:- J D M AVIATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040PB2013PTC038242

Company & Directors' Information:- J T AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200DL2011PTC216080

    CA No. 552 of 2014

    Decided On, 29 October 2014

    At, Court of Appeal of New Zealand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRISON

    For the Appellant: In Person. For the Respondent: A R Longdill, O Klaassen, Advocate.



Judgment Text

[1] On 1 October 2014 the appellant, Razdan Rafiq, pre-emptively applied to review a decision later made by the Registrar on 14 October, declining his application to dispense with security for costs on this appeal against strike-out in Rafiq v Director of Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.[1] She directed the security be set at $5,880.00 and be paid on or before 11 November 2014.

[2] Mr Rafiq has no right to apply for a review of the Registrar’s decision before that decision has been made, but to avoid further inconvenience to the Registry from the inevitability of a fresh challenge to the decision on the same grounds as now advanced I am prepared to consider the documents filed by Mr Rafiq as an application to review the decision subsequently made.

[3] The Registrar properly concluded 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 right to determine that impecuniosity does not suffice, and could have added that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying dispensation in this case. Furthermore, this appeal does not raise an issue of public importance or significance.

[4] The Registrar was also entitled to take into account Venning J’s observation in the judgment under appeal that Mr Rafiq’s proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court, and that Mr Rafiq has previously acknowledged that his efforts are deliberate attempts to vex and harass the various respondents. The Registrar properly concluded it would not be right to require the various respondents in this appeal to defend the judgment under challenge without the usual protection as to costs provided by security.[2]

[5] Mr Rafiq also made a pre-emptive application for a stay of the substantive appeal in this Court pending his appeal from the present review decision to the Supreme Court. It is neither practical nor appropriate that three Judges of this Court consider the stay application and so I consider it alone.[3] These well-settled factors are decisive against granting the stay:[4] (a) the appeal will not be rendered nugatory by the lack of a stay; (b) Mr Rafiq’s appeal does not appear to be in good faith; (c) the questions involved are not novel or important; (d) there is not any public interest in the proceeding; and (e) the appeal has no apparent merit.

[6] Mr Rafiq’s applications to review the Registrar’s decision and for a stay are dismissed. Accordingly he must pay the sum of $5,880.00 by way of security for costs on or before 18 November 2014.

1. Rafiq v Director of Civil Aviation Authority

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of New Zealand [2014] NZHC 2296. 2. Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63 at [31]. 3. Pursuant to rr 7(1) and 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. 4. Recently summarised in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in rec and liq) [2014] NZCA 86 at [25].
O R