Rafiq v Privacy Commissioner [2014] NZCA 232 (9 June 2014)

Last Updated: 18 June 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA116/2014 [2014] NZCA 232
BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in Person K Evans for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	9 June 2014 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

1. The order made on 10 April 2014 is varied.
2. 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 to review the Registrar’s refusal to dispense with payment of security for costs and ordered 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 appeal 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 that any extension ends “very soon after the Supreme Court issues its decision” on the application 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 the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

---

^[1] Rule 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.