Ruling says letting proceeding continue will be disreputable for courts
In a case concerning various debts owed to a bank, the New Zealand Court of Appeal struck out an appeal upon determining that the advancement or defence of proceedings or appeals as a “sovereign citizen” would plainly abuse the process.
In Foley v ASB Bank Limited [2026] NZCA 183, the appellant had no legal representative but had the assistance of a McKenzie friend. He sought to raise defences of the “sovereign citizen” variety, which the courts have repeatedly refused to recognise.
On 30 March 2026, Associate Judge Lester of the High Court granted summary judgment against the appellant in connection with the debt claims upon considering the defences “legal nonsense.”
On 15 April 2026, Judge Dunningham of the High Court separately addressed multiple interlocutory matters.
On 1 May 2026, the appellant attempted to file his appeals against both High Court decisions. The court rejected these appeals for filing because he:
On 4 May 2026, the appellant applied for an extension of time for his proposed appeal against the March decision.
Given the brief one-day extension of time sought, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand decided to extend the time for the appellant to appeal against the High Court’s March decision. However, the appeal court struck out the appeal.
The appeal court found the appellant’s papers apparently the same as or similar to those before the High Court of New Zealand. The appeal court ruled that these papers showed many, if not all, of the hallmarks of a “sovereign citizen” position.
Given the overwhelming authority in New Zealand and abroad, the appeal court found the “sovereign citizen” defence completely untenable as a matter of law. According to the appeal court, allowing proceedings to continue on this basis risked bringing the courts and the administration of justice into disrepute.
Under s 164B(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (SCA), the appeal court considered this the first strike-out order for the purposes of s 164C of the SCA.
In the event of another strike-out order under s 164B within two years of the first order, the appeal court would automatically restrain the appellant from initiating or continuing a civil proceeding without first getting the High Court’s leave for three years from the date of the issuance of the second strike-out order.
The appeal court noted that the appellant could apply to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for leave to appeal the present decision.
Regarding the High Court’s April decision, the appeal court assumed that the appellant would seek the required leave and thus declined to discuss this matter further.
