Court finds applicant lacked standing and imposes litigation restraint of up to three years
The Supreme Court of New Zealand struck out an application for leave to appeal in a property dispute, finding that the bankrupt applicant lacked standing and that her application plainly constituted an abuse of the court's process.
In Baker v Baker [2026] NZSC 143, the court struck out the application under s. 164B(2)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
The dispute arose from High Court proceedings involving the applicant, Sumit Design Developments Limited, and another party. The applicant was Sumit's sole director and one of its shareholders before being adjudicated bankrupt on 12 February 2026.
After her bankruptcy, she ceased to hold office as a director, and her shares in the company vested in the official assignee. The opposing party discontinued the claim against her but continued proceedings against the company.
On 11 May 2026, the High Court ordered the company to sell its half share in a Queenstown property to the opposing party.
The applicant subsequently attempted to file an appeal-related application seeking an extension of time, a stay of execution, and other orders. A Court of Appeal deputy registrar rejected the filing because the applicant was bankrupt and therefore prohibited from commencing court proceedings.
A Court of Appeal judge declined her application for review, finding that the applicant was not a party to the High Court judgment and had no appeal rights.
The applicant sought Supreme Court leave, challenging findings on her appeal rights, share ownership, the completed property transfer, and restrictions on further filings.
The Supreme Court found that her lack of standing was clear from her application and accompanying submissions.
It explained that proceedings must involve persons with a legitimate interest in the dispute. Requiring respondents to answer proceedings brought by someone plainly lacking standing would be manifestly unfair.
The court distinguished legally untenable proceedings from abusive proceedings, noting that abuse must be clear beyond doubt from the claim. It found that the applicant lacked standing because the claim against her had been discontinued before the High Court delivered judgment.
The court also noted earlier strike-out orders made in May and September 2026.
It restrained the applicant from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in a senior court, another court, or a tribunal without High Court leave until the earlier of three years from the latest strike-out order or the date the first strike-out order is set aside on appeal.
