IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-305 [2013] NZHC 553

UNDER	the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant

AND	APN NZ LTD Respondent

Hearing:	20 March 2013

Counsel:	Applicant in person
TC Goatley and KM Litt for Respondent

Judgment:	20 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 March 2013 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SOLICITORS
Bell Gully (Auckland) for Respondent
(Copy to Applicant in person)

RAFIQ V APN NZ LTD HC AK CIV-2013-404-305 [20 March 2013]

[1]       Mr Rafiq (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal out of time the oral judgment of Judge JP Gittos delivered in the District Court at Auckland on 6 November 2012.

[2]       Judge  Gittos  struck  out  a  claim  brought  by  the  applicant  against  the respondent for damages for defamation.

[3]       The application for leave to appeal out of time is permitted by r 20.4 of the High Court Rules.  The Court has a discretion which will be exercised having regard to the reasons for failing to bring the appeal in time and the merits of the intended appeal.  The governing consideration is always the requirements of the justice of the case.

[4]       In  this  case  the  delay  was  not  lengthy.    The  appeal  period  expired  on

4 December 2012.  On that date the respondent was served by the applicant with a notice of appeal and a notice of application for leave to appeal to the High Court. However, the documents were not filed in the High Court until 23 January 2013.

[5]       The applicant is a self-represented litigant.  He explains the delay as caused by  a  mixture  of  ignorance  of  the  strict  requirements  and  lack  of  resources  to assemble the documents he thought were necessary.

[6]       I do not consider the delay to be material to the decision I have to make.

[7]       The key factor in this application is my consideration of the merits of the appeal.  I have reached a clear view that there are none.  Judge Gittos was manifestly correct to strike out the applicant’s claim.

[8]       The respondent publishes a newspaper called the Herald on Sunday.   On

20 November 2011 it published a brief article which, in its entirety, reads as follows:

Post-campaign.  A 28 year old Auckland man has been charged with posting indecent material to government agencies.  Razdan Khan, who also goes by the name of Razdan Rafiq, has been charged with sending five indecent articles  to  the  Privacy  Commission  and  10  indecent  articles  to  Inland

Revenue.	Khan  told  the  Herald  on  Sunday  he  objected  to  European occupation of Maori land.

[9]       I do not need to go into the details of why this report was not defamatory of the applicant.  The reasons are given in the oral judgment of Judge Gittos.

[10]     The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal dated 23 January 2013 do not assist the applicant.  They simply make it plain that the applicant’s case is frivolous and that to permit it to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

[11]     The application for leave to appeal out of time is declined.

[12]     The respondent is entitled to costs.  I fix these on a 1B basis given that the issues were plain and their resolution obvious.

Brewer J