McKenzie v ASB Bank Limited - [2025] NZHC 1074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000968

[2025] NZHC 1074

BETWEEN
ANGUS EDWARD MCKENZIE

Plaintiff

AND

ASB BANK LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

6 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 06 May 2025 at 4 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copies to Plaintiff
ASB Bank Ltd.

MCKENZIE v ASB BANK LIMITED [2025] NZHC 1074 [6 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] The Registrar has referred this matter to me pursuant to r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. The documents referred to me are:

(a)a statement of claim between Angus Edward McKenzie, plaintiff, and ASB Bank Ltd, defendant; and

(b)a notice of proceedings dated 18 November 2024 to ASB Bank Ltd (ASB) as defendant.

[2]Mr McKenzie by way of his statement of claim claims the following relief:

(a)$500,000 for deceitful and misleading behaviour because ASB branch number 3164 is said to be associated with an address in Murchison which is not an ASB bank branch. The legislation cited in support of that cause of action is the Sentencing Act 2002, the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the Crimes Act 1961 and the Fair Trading Act 1986.

(b)$500,000 for a nine-day delay in ASB opening Mr McKenzie’s bank account.

(c)$500,000 for committing fraud and theft, and failing to resolve issues with the bank application and missing money.

(d)$500,000 because the ASB banking application is misleading and unreliable.

(e)$500,000 for theft and fraud on the basis that the ASB banking application has been altered with and manipulated to disguise theft. The factual basis for this claim is that on 7 February 2025 Mr McKenzie captured and saved a screenshot of his account on the ASB banking application which displayed an available balance of $282.28. At
1.45 am on 10 February the bank account displayed an available

balance of $264.27 for 7 February instead of $282.28, leaving an
$18.01 discrepancy that the ASB bank manager has not been able to explain when enquired via email.

[3] Mr McKenzie cites various legislation to support his various claims including the Sentencing Act, the Crimes Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act, the Fair Trading Act and the Banking (Prudential Supervision) Act 1989.

[4] The statement of claim states that the plaintiff is seeking the amounts sought to punish ASB, keeping them responsible for their actions. The statement of claim says that the plaintiff is to “seek an education and training abroad with the opportunities available with a huge financial reward and hopefully to better the economy by firstly “scaping” [him] from poverty and the grips of fraudulence”. The statement of claim states that if it were in the plaintiff’s capabilities he would be seeking a hostile take over of the entire bank and that is why he mentions education and training abroad as being a more likely possibility if having the financial capacity.

Jurisdiction

[5]Rules 5.35A…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McKenzie v ASB Bank Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1074
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McKenzie v ASB Bank Limited, the plaintiff, Angus Edward McKenzie, filed a claim against the defendant, ASB Bank Limited, alleging deceitful and misleading behaviour, fraud, and theft. The plaintiff sought substantial damages amounting to $500,000 for each claim. The basis for these claims included allegations of misrepresentation regarding a bank branch location, delays in account opening, discrepancies in account balances, and alleged manipulation of the bank application. The plaintiff cited various pieces of legislation in support of his claims, although it was noted that some of these statutes were not applicable to the context of the case.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the plaintiff's claims constituted a genuine legal action or were frivolous and an abuse of the court process. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's claims were so implausible or trivial that they warranted the court's intervention to prevent the abuse of process. The court examined the nature of the claims, including the triviality of the alleged damages and the plaintiff's apparent motive to seek a financial windfall rather than genuine redress.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous and represented an improper use of the court's processes. The judge found that the plaintiff's allegations were trivial, involving minor delays, small monetary discrepancies, and a dispute over a branch address. The court determined that the plaintiff was using the court process for an ulterior purpose rather than to seek genuine legal redress. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under the High Court Rules to strike out the statement of claim and the notice of proceedings, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's case. The court's decision protected the defendant from frivolous litigation and upheld public confidence in the judicial system.

Orders