Ruling rejects pseudo-legal arguments with sovereign citizen tropes
In a debt recovery proceeding brought by ASB Bank Limited, the New Zealand Court of Appeal struck out the debtor’s appeal under s 164B(2)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (SCA) for plainly abusing the court’s process.
The bank – the first respondent in Foley v ASB Bank Limited [2026] NZCA 292 – requested summary judgment from the High Court, regarding the outstanding balance the appellant owed under three credit facilities that had advanced funds for his farming operation.
The appellant filed a statement of defence and counterclaim to add the bank’s chief executive officer and 15 other employees or current or former directors to the proceeding.
In a results decision dated 18 May 2026 and a reasons decision dated 26 May 2026, the High Court struck out the appellant’s counterclaim upon determining that the counterclaims based on well-established sovereign citizen tropes wholly lacked merit and were legal nonsense.
On 16 June 2026, the appellant appealed against the two High Court rulings.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand ruled that its present strike-out order, made within two years of the first strike-out order, triggered the automatic restraint provisions of s 164C of the SCA.
Thus, for a three-year period, the appeal court restrained the appellant from initiating or maintaining any civil proceeding before a senior court, another court, or a tribunal without the High Court’s leave under ss 164C(3) and (4) of the SCA.
Under s 164B(4)(c), the appeal court informed the appellant of his right to apply for leave to appeal from the strike-out order before the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
Regarding pleadings or submissions based on sovereign citizen tropes, such as arguments grounded on the strawman or dual persona theory, the appeal court pointed out that courts:
Regarding the appellant’s perception that he could unilaterally revoke his contracts and escape the courts’ jurisdiction or any continuing contractual obligations, the appeal court held that this belief lacked any legal basis.
Regarding the appellant’s claim that the application of the law required individual consent, the appeal court said courts have repeatedly considered such arguments totally untenable.
The appeal court said the appellant based his counterclaims and defences on the same pseudo-legal arguments. The appeal court noted that Justice Ellis previously struck out the appellant’s defences for being plainly abusive.
According to the appeal court, requiring 19 respondents to incur additional expenses to defend against an appeal seeking to reinstate a largely incomprehensible and legally nonsensical counterclaim would be manifestly unfair.
The appeal court concluded that permitting the present appeal to proceed further would make right-thinking people believe that the court was poorly controlling its processes.
