McKenzie v Sidhu

[2025] NZHC 957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-203

[2025] NZHC 957

UNDER

the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of settling a dispute

BETWEEN

ANGUS EDWARD MCKENZIE

Plaintiff

AND

SANDEEP SIDHU

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	A E McKenzie self-represented plaintiff
Judgment:	17 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

(Reference under r 5.35A)

[1]                 Angus McKenzie purchased some creatine, a supplement often used by weight-lifters, from XPLOSIV Supplements in Wellington in September 2023.

[2]                 Mr McKenzie was dissatisfied with the quality of the creatine he purchased. He bought a claim for $20,000 in damages before the Disputes Tribunal against     Mr Sidhu, who Mr McKenzie describes as “the sole trader who owns the franchise”.

[3]                 The Disputes Tribunal referee dismissed Mr McKenzie’s claim, refused to transfer the proceeding to the District Court, and fixed costs payable by McKenzie to Mr Sidhu at $500 on the grounds that Mr McKenzie’s claim was frivolous or vexatious.

MCKENZIE v SIDHU [2025] NZHC 957 [17 April 2025]

[4]                 Mr McKenzie then appealed to the District Court against the Disputes Tribunal decision. Judge Rowe dismissed Mr McKenzie’s appeal.1

[5]                 Mr McKenzie then sought to appeal the District Court’s decision to the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by Grau J for lack of jurisdiction, as the Disputes Tribunal Act 1998 makes it clear there is no further right of appeal to the High Court for a decision originating in the Disputes Tribunal.2

[6]                 Undeterred by the dismissal of his appeal, Mr McKenzie has now filed a statement of claim, purporting to be a general civil proceeding. By this document, Mr McKenzie attempts to rerun the same dispute concerning the creatine he purchased in September 2023. This  time,  however,  Mr McKenzie  claims  $100,000  from  Mr Sidhu “based on the Sentencing Act 2002”.

[7]                 Mr McKenzie’s proceeding has been referred to me by the Registrar under     r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. That rule provides that if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Registrar may refer it to a Judge for consideration under r 5.35B. That rule, in turn, provides that a judge may order that a proceeding that is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court may be struck out.

[8]                 The strike out powers in r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases.3 A “plainly abusive proceeding” includes proceedings which on the face of the documents filed, indicate an obvious misuse of the Court’s processes. This can include a claim that seeks to relitigate claims that have already been determined.4

[9]                 Moreover, bringing a civil proceeding for alleged criminal offending is also an abuse of the process of the Court which can be struck out.5

1      McKenzie v Sidhu [2025] NZDC 1362.

2      McKenzie v Sidhu [2025] NZHC 654.

3      Te Wakaminenga O Nga Kapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63, [2023] NZAR 180.

4      Forster v Dewar [2024] NZHC 3995 at [17]; Blissett v Commissioner of Police [2025] NZHC 123 at [9].

5      Ropiha-Waikerepuru v Simpson Grierson [2023] NZHC 646.

[10]              For both reasons, the fact that Mr McKenzie is seeking to relitigate a claim that has already been conclusively determined by the Disputes Tribunal and then on appeal to the District Court and the High Court, and that Mr McKenzie seeks to include criminal allegations in a civil proceeding, his proceeding is plainly an abuse of process.

[11]              It would be improper to require Mr Sidhu to respond to Mr McKenzie’s allegations through Court processes. The Court would be exercising poor control of its processes if it allowed the present proceeding to continue. Mr McKenzie’s proceeding is not capable of being amended to turn it into a valid claim against the defendant.

[12]Mr McKenzie’s proceeding is struck out. He has a right to appeal this decision.

McHerron J