Matters below involved citizenship, credit card, alleged vehicle damages
The Supreme Court of New Zealand has declined to recall a judgment refusing to review the denial of requested fee waivers upon finding that the application fell short of the high threshold needed for a recall application.
On 4 October 2024, before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicant applied for a stay of five proceedings he brought pending a Supreme Court appeal and sought an extension of time to appeal one of these proceedings.
First, in CA518/2024, a judge struck out the applicant’s claim on 25 July 2024 – which wanted $300,000,000 in damages arising from the denial of his citizenship application in 2017 – as an abuse of process. On 12 August 2024, the applicant appealed as of right.
Second and third, in CA527/2024 and CA642/2024, the applicant sought a stay in connection with two of three identical High Court proceedings regarding a request for damages from Baycorp PDL (NZ) Ltd and Latitude Financial Services Ltd. arising out of a credit card application.
Fourth, in CA556/2024, on 13 August 2024, a judge struck out a proceeding – arising from a damages claim before the Disputes Tribunal after Supercity Towing Ltd towed the applicant’s vehicle under the Land Transport Act 1998 on 27 March 2018 – as abusive of process. On 28 August 2024, the applicant appealed as of right.
Fifth, in CA597/2024, the applicant commenced proceedings against the Disputes Tribunal before the High Court after his unsuccessful claim against Supercity. On 28 August 2024, a judge struck out the proceeding as an abuse of process. On 12 September 2024, the applicant appealed as of right.
In Rafiq v Secretary for Internal Affairs, [2025] NZCA 229, on 11 June 2025, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal denied the applications seeking an extension of time in CA527/2024 and a stay in all five proceedings.
On 3 July 2025, the applicant filed five notices of application for leave to appeal the appeal court’s 11 June 2025 judgment and also applied for fee waivers.
The applicant then applied for a review of a decision of the Supreme Court’s deputy registrar to deny the fee waiver application.
On 27 August 2025, a single judge of the Supreme Court denied the review application. The applicant applied to recall this judgment.
In Rafiq, [2025] NZSC 124, New Zealand’s Supreme Court dismissed the application to recall its 27 August 2025 judgment.
The Supreme Court rejected as incorrect the applicant’s argument that a five-judge panel should have heard the review application.
The Supreme Court explained that s 160(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 permitted someone disagreeing with a registrar’s or deputy registrar’s fee decision to apply for a single judge’s review of the decision and granted no further right of review against that judge’s decision.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicant’s application did not rise to the high threshold needed for a successful recall application. The Supreme Court noted that it would only recall a judgment in exceptional circumstances.
