Applicant alleges overlap between civil proceedings, criminal misconduct allegations
New Zealand’s High Court has dismissed an application to review a registrar’s decision rejecting a document for filing, given that the applicant failed to include the required documentation despite twice receiving clear directions to do so.
In Mayhew v Sealegs International Limited, [2025] NZHC 1531, the applicant wanted to challenge a decision delivered by Justice Venning of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on 25 November 2024.
In her minute dated 12 March 2025, Justice Fitzgerald explained the required process for assailing the judgment and directed the applicant to file the following documents by 11 April 2025: an application for leave to appeal and a new originating application to set aside the arbitral award, if seeking to challenge this award.
In his minute dated 1 May 2025, Justice van Bohemen found defects in the applicant’s documentation and breaches of directions when the applicant tried to file a notice of appeal without the required application for leave to appeal and tried to file an application to set aside the arbitral award in the present proceeding instead of initiating a new proceeding.
Justice van Bohemen acknowledged that the applicant was unrepresented and offered him one more opportunity to file the proper documents. He directed the applicant to file and serve, consistent with the High Court Rules 2016 and the guidance in his minute, the following by 1 June 2025:
Justice van Bohemen concluded that the court would not accept for filing any applications breaching these directions or any other documents that the applicant was seeking to file in the current or new proceedings without the judge’s permission.
However, the applicant failed to comply with the directions and instead filed a document called an “Application for Adjournment” in late May 2025. The registrar refused to accept this document for filing per Justice van Bohemen’s directions.
The applicant applied for review of the registrar’s decision under r 2.11. In his review application, the applicant cited s 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and asked to stay the proceedings until a resolution or findings by the Serious Fraud Office.
In his review application, the applicant reiterated matters previously raised. He alleged that these civil proceedings overlapped with allegations of serious criminal misconduct and that the matter was being formally documented for notification to the US Department of Homeland Security, given that it engaged international public interest and national security relevance.
The High Court of New Zealand deemed the application to review the registrar’s decision misconceived. The court ruled that the registrar correctly refused to accept the applicant’s document for filing.
The court held that the applicant failed to file the required application for leave despite receiving clear directions on two instances regarding the appropriate documents that he should file if he wanted to challenge the 25 November 2024 judgment.
The court noted that the applicant instead decided to file a document titled “Application for Adjournment.” The court said this document lacked any status, considering the current state of the proceeding.
