A High Court judge has dismissed a $2 million lawsuit brought against ANZ bank by two Featherston residents, labeling the claim as “choked with pseudo-law.” Judge David Boldt ruled against homeowners Herman van Velzen and Elizabeth van Gool, finding their legal arguments—which challenged the bank’s authority and the validity of local rating laws—to be entirely without basis in reality.
Background: The Dispute Over Unpaid Rates
The legal conflict began in September 2023, when ANZ contacted van Velzen and van Gool regarding unpaid property rates. According to the bank, the South Wairarapa District Council had notified them that the rates remained outstanding. As the mortgagee, ANZ informed the residents that the council could require the bank to settle the arrears, which would result in the bank debiting the homeowners’ accounts and potentially causing them to become overdrawn.
In response, the residents initiated a claim against the bank for more than $2 million. The pair served ANZ with documents titled “notice of discovery of theft” and “notice of tacit acquiescence.” Among their demands, the residents challenged the mortgage’s validity and insisted that the bank provide proof of its authority over “the living man or woman.”
High Court Ruling and Sovereign Citizen Tropes
Judge Boldt made his decision based on the submitted papers, determining that no hearing was necessary because the claim lacked any legal merit. In his ruling, the judge stated he would “not attempt to analyse any aspect of the claim further.”
The court identified the arguments used by the residents as characteristic of the “sovereign citizen” movement, a group known for rejecting government and legal authority. Judge Boldt noted that the documents included biblical citations, references to admiralty, and the inappropriate use of trademark symbols. “They signed their documents using fingerprints and their Christian names,” the judge observed. He concluded that such claims, which rely on archaic phrasing and inapplicable statutory provisions, have been consistently struck out by senior courts.
Consequences and Potential Legal Future
The High Court’s decision serves as an official “first strike” under New Zealand’s court guidelines regarding vexatious litigation. This status carries significant consequences for the residents’ future legal standing.
Should the residents file any further lawsuits within the next two years that are struck out as an abuse of process, they face an automatic three-year ban from initiating civil proceedings across all New Zealand courts and tribunals. While the court has closed the current matter, van Velzen and van Gool retain the right to appeal the strike-out order.
Related reading