Senior Courts Act order prevented claimant from starting or continuing civil proceedings
The New Zealand High Court has denied leave for an applicant to continue a proceeding claiming that a deputy registrar of the Wellington High Court had defamed him by rejecting his documents for filing.
The applicant in McKenzie v Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court [2026] NZHC 3403 brought the proceeding under rr 5.35B(2)(a) and 15.1(1)(d) of the High Court Rules 2016. He requested $50k in compensation, plus exemplary damages.
On 21 September 2026, Justice Radich of the High Court struck out his proceeding under rr 5.35B(2)(a) and 15.1(1)(d) of the High Court Rules. According to the judge, the proceeding plainly abused the High Court process.
The applicant asked for leave to appeal against Justice Radich’s decision.
The applicant required leave to continue his proceeding to file a notice for leave to appeal, given an order under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which prevented him from commencing or continuing a civil proceeding before any court or tribunal without leave from the High Court.
The applicant alleged that Justice Radich and the deputy registrar lacked a logical basis for applying ss 164B or 164C of the Senior Courts Act, as a lawful court should have heard his meritorious claims, which remained unheard due to the registry’s misconduct and negligence.
Citing Justice Kawharu’s ruling in Baker v Public Service Commissioner [2026] NZHC 3041, Justice Grau of the High Court denied the application for leave to continue the proceeding under s 164C.
Justice Grau ruled that the application to continue lacked a special justification for the court to issue leave regardless of the restriction set in s 164C. The judge disagreed that the decision-makers had unlawfully imposed the restriction.
According to Justice Grau, the applicant was:
In an applicant’s proceeding to set aside a statutory demand arising from a District Court judgment in the respondent’s favour, the High Court of New Zealand issued a 20 August 2026 ruling refusing a request by the applicant’s counsel to recall its judgment awarding scale costs personally against him.
On 26 March 2026, the High Court upheld a registrar’s refusal to accept the filing of the plaintiff’s 13 November 2025 statement of claim asserting negligence against the defendant, who was chief legal counsel to the Ministry of Justice.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
