Two Featherston residents tried to sue ANZ for $2 million after being told their unpaid council bills could be debited from their bank account.
By Emily Ireland for Local Democracy Reporting
The claim was thrown out earlier this year by High Court Judge David Boldt who said it was “choked with pseudo-law” common in the sovereign citizen movement, comprising people who reject government and legal authority.
ANZ wrote to Herman van Velzen and Elizabeth van Gool in September 2023 saying they had been informed by South Wairarapa District Council that the rates on their property had not been paid.
The bank indicated it was writing in its capacity as mortgagee, and that there was a risk the council could require the bank to meet the arrears.
In that event, ANZ would deduct the rates from the homeowners’ bank account, which could result in the account becoming overdrawn.
The residents demanded that the bank prove it had authority over "the living man or woman"; challenged the validity of the mortgage; and claimed local rating laws did not apply to them.
They served ANZ with what they described as a “notice of discovery of theft” and a “notice of tacit acquiescence” demanding a substantial sum of money.
“They signed their documents using fingerprints and their Christian names,” Judge Boldt said.
“The total sum they now purport to claim from ANZ exceeds $2 million.”
In his ruling, Judge Boldt said he would “not attempt to analyse any aspect of the claim further” and made a decision on the papers without requiring a hearing.
“It makes no sense at all, and none of the legal propositions said to support it has any basis in reality,” he said.
“The claim is choked with pseudo-law. It includes numerous references to inapplicable statutory provisions, biblical citations, and tropes - such as the inappropriate use of the trade mark symbol, an incongruous fixation on admiralty, a rejection of usual forms of address and archaic phrasing - common in the sovereign citizen movement.
“Claims of that nature have been consistently struck out by the senior courts.”
The judgement served as an official "first strike" under New Zealand’s court guidelines.
Judge Boldt warned the residents that if they filed any subsequent lawsuit that was struck out as an abuse of process within the next two years, they would face an automatic three-year ban from launching civil proceedings across any New Zealand court or tribunal.
The residents retained the right to appeal the strike-out order.
– Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
SHARE ME