Judge finds claim against state officials unintelligible, moot, time-barred
In a proceeding arising from a plaintiff’s 2016 application for New Zealand citizenship, the High Court struck out his proceeding, which it found vexatious, abusive of process, and lacking in merit or a reasonably arguable cause of action.
On 24 August 2017, the minister of internal affairs denied the citizenship application of the plaintiff in Rafiq v Secretary for Internal Affairs and Chief Executive for Department of Internal Affairs [2026] NZHC 2075.
In an initial statement of claim filed on 5 January 2024 and an amended statement of claim filed on 27 December 2024, the plaintiff sought declarations and damages of $2.7bn.
In the present proceeding, the plaintiff alleged that the Department of Internal Affairs unlawfully collected, recorded, shared, and withheld information concerning his 2016 citizenship application, which contributed to the minister’s decision.
In connection with the minister’s decision, the plaintiff initiated numerous proceedings challenging the conduct of state entities and officials.
On 8 February 2023, Judge Downs quashed the minister’s decision. In response to the judge’s decision, the plaintiff brought multiple appeals and interlocutory applications.
Given the plaintiff’s repeated failure to follow the timetable directions, in a memorandum filed on 13 July 2026, the department’s counsel requested directions to advance the proceeding, an order to strike it out, and an extended order under s 166(2)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
The High Court struck out the plaintiff’s entire proceeding under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016. The court saw no reasonably arguable cause of action in the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim.
Specifically, the court described the claim as:
The High Court found the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim vexatious and plainly abusive of process.
Specifically, the court held that the claim sought:
Under an extended order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act, the High Court of New Zealand restrained the plaintiff for three years from commencing or continuing civil proceedings regarding the minister’s citizenship application decision or related court or tribunal matters without the court’s leave.
First, the court noted that prior decisions had stricken out three related substantive proceedings without merit, just as the present proceeding lacked merit, and dismissed appeals and interlocutory applications relating to the various proceedings.
Regarding discretionary considerations, the court explained that the plaintiff:
Lastly, the court permitted the parties to file cost memoranda.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
