Man sought over $300m in compensatory, aggravated, punitive damages
The New Zealand Supreme Court has emphasised that it would not strike out a civil claim for an abuse of process under s 164B of the Senior Courts Act 2016 simply because the proceedings were unmeritorious or legally untenable.
The case was Rafiq v New Zealand Post Group t/a New Zealand Post [2026] NZSC 135. Before the High Court, the applicant commenced a civil claim against “New Zealand Post Group trading as New Zealand Post.”
Specifically, the applicant claimed:
Prior to the service of the claim, the High Court struck it out for plainly abusing the process. The Court of Appeal then dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the High Court ruling. Before the Supreme Court, the applicant applied for leave to appeal.
A deputy registrar accepted the applicant’s six-page notice of application for filing. However, under s 164A of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the registrar referred the proceeding to a Supreme Court judge because it might be a plain abuse of the court’s process.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the registrar to set a timetable for submissions.
Without requiring further submissions, the Supreme Court held that the leave application did not plainly abuse its process.
Upon reviewing the notice of application and the accompanying submissions, the court determined that the applicant complied with the procedural rules, clearly identified the nature of the proposed appeal, and gave an intelligible basis for the proposed appeal.
Specifically, the applicant alleged that the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the High Court’s strike-out decision based on the absence of real merit to his claim.
Apart from the apparent lack of merit, the Supreme Court saw no other basis to consider the proceeding an abuse of process.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
Regardless of the misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct findings against his former solicitor, the Supreme Court issued a 17 August 2026 decision denying a man’s second recall application arising from the High Court of New Zealand’s bankruptcy order against him in August 2018.
In a 14 August 2026 decision upholding a refusal to extend the time for an applicant to file leave applications in a family matter, the Supreme Court acknowledged his legal training and “familiarity with civil procedure,” as seen in his High Court and Court of Appeal of New Zealand applications.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
