Court rejects sovereign citizen-style arguments and refuses interim relief in debt recovery dispute
The Supreme Court of New Zealand has dismissed applications for leave to appeal against Court of Appeal decisions striking out proceedings arising from a debt recovery claim brought by ASB Bank Ltd and receivers of a secured property.
In Foley v ASB Bank Ltd [2026] NZSC 147, the court upheld findings that the applicant’s appeals constituted abuses of process under s. 164B of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The proceedings concerned a High Court summary judgment against the applicant for debts owed to ASB totalling $980,371.78.
On 14 May 2026, the Court of Appeal struck out the applicant’s proposed appeal against the summary judgment. It found that the applicant's filed papers bore many, if not all, of the hallmarks of the sovereign citizen movement and that the appeal was plainly an abuse of process.
On 3 July 2026, the Court of Appeal struck out another proposed appeal against further High Court decisions striking out the applicant’s counterclaim to the debt recovery action.
The court found that his defence and counterclaim relied on pseudo-legal, sovereign-citizen-style arguments without legal foundation. These included claims that he could unilaterally revoke contracts and opt out of ongoing contractual obligations.
The second strike-out order triggered a three-year restriction requiring the applicant to obtain High Court leave before commencing or continuing any civil proceeding, including an appeal, in a senior court, another court or a tribunal.
The applicant challenged both strike-out decisions and the Court of Appeal’s subsequent refusal to recall its second decision. He alleged breaches of natural justice and due process, misapplication of the legal tests for summary judgment and strike-out, failure to consider supporting evidence, and fraud. He also argued that he was not the legal person who entered into the contracts and that the proceedings raised issues of commercial significance.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, agreeing with the courts below that the proposition that the applicant was not a legal person for the proceedings lacked merit and that his appeals were a plain abuse of process. It found no appearance of a miscarriage of justice in the civil sense and no question of general commercial significance that would satisfy the criteria for leave to appeal.
The court also declined permission to file further affidavits and submissions, finding that they did not advance the applicant’s position. It dismissed the applications for interim relief, including requests to stay execution of the relevant summary judgments and possession orders.
The Supreme Court dismissed both applications for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents one set of costs.
