McKenzie v The Co-Operative Bank Limited

[2025] NZHC 3317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-000594 [2025] NZHC 3317

BETWEEN

ANGUS EDWARD MCKENZIE

Applicant

AND

THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	4 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Review of Deputy Registrar’s decision)

[1]                 Angus McKenzie seeks review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar declining to accept his documents for filing.1

Documents filed

[2]                 On 26 August 2025, Mr McKenzie purported to file a statement of claim and notice of proceeding initiating a proceeding against the Co-Operative Bank Ltd (the Bank). Although difficult to follow, the statement of claim appears to allege five causes of action.

[3]                 First, it is claimed that the Bank has been “deceitful and misleading” because it has failed to provide proof of transactions and altered account records. In reliance on the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Fair Trading Act 1986 and Banking (Prudential

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 2.11.

MCKENZIE v THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD [2025] NZHC 3317 [4 November 2025]

Supervision) Act 1989, Mr McKenzie seeks a remedy of $466 million (or a sum that a Judge deems just) under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

[4]                 Second, Mr McKenzie alleges that the Bank’s services do not comply with its guarantees, in that he has been repeatedly scammed, without any wellness checks from the Bank. He also objects to having incurred a $10.00 charge for a replacement EFTPOS card, which was seized by an ATM. He alleges breaches of the Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act, and repeats his claim for damages in the sum of

$466 million under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

[5]                 Third, the statement of claim alleges that the Bank has made misrepresentations, such as providing statements that show transactions being made on the wrong day and providing forms of his transaction history that are inconsistent with printed statements. Mr McKenzie also suggests that he has been contacted by “false aliases” representing the Bank, who claim to be in job titles that they do not hold. He again alleges that the Bank has acted contrary to the Fair Trading Act, Consumer Guarantees Act, and Banking (Prudential Supervision) Act and claims

$466 million under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

[6]                 Fourth, Mr McKenzie’s statement of claim reiterates his concerns about misrepresentative and inconsistent transaction logs and incorrect balances, and further alleges that the Bank closed his account as a result of his complaints, seizing $8.06 in doing so. He alleges that the Bank is deceiving him for monetary gain, causing loss, contrary to the Fair Trading Act, Consumer Guarantees Act, and Banking (Prudential Supervision) Act. He again claims $466 million in damages under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

[7]                 Finally, Mr McKenzie alleges that the Bank is responsible for causing the loss of bank statements that would otherwise be “integral for settling” his grievance with another entity, New Zealand Proud (NZ Proud), pertaining to whether he has paid an invoice for the same work twice. He says that the Bank is likely to have a conflict of interest in providing him with bank statements that are not fraudulent or tampered with. Accordingly, he says that the Bank has caused loss under the Fair Trading Act,

Banking (Prudential Supervisions) Act, and Consumer Guarantees Act, and again seeks damages of $466 million under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The Deputy Registrar’s decision

[8]                 The Deputy Registrar declined to accept Mr McKenzie’s statement of claim and notice of proceeding for filing, for three reasons. First, the documents did not comply with pt 5 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR). Second, the matter has already been determined in similar proceedings filed by Mr McKenzie against the Bank.2 Finally, Mr McKenzie’s claims relating to NZ Proud were previously struck out in another decision of this Court.3

Review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision

[9]                 Mr McKenzie seeks review on the basis that any non-compliance with the HCR is likely to be “minor and easily rectified”. Mr McKenzie argues that the determinations in respect of his prior claims against the Bank did not consider his claims “in merit”, and only considered the procedural factors (such as the fact that his prior claims relied on a mixture of criminal and civil allegations). He further submits that the Court of Appeal’s most recent decision “was blatantly incorrect” in suggesting that the application was a “misconceived claim which involves an abuse of the Court’s processes”, despite it no longer containing both criminal and civil allegations.4 Finally, he notes that the decision of this Court striking out Mr McKenzie’s claims against NZ Proud is under appeal.5

Decision

[10]             Under r 2.11 of the HCR, an affected party to an intended proceeding may apply to a Judge by interlocutory application for a review of a Registrar’s refusal to

2      The Deputy Registrar observed that decisions in that proceeding most recently included McKenzie v Co-Op Bank Ltd [2025] NZCA 318 [Strike-out appeal] and McKenzie v Co-op Bank Ltd [2025] NZCA 427 [Recall judgment].

3      McKenzie v New Zealand Proud Kapiti Ltd and Others [2025] NZHC 320 [First NZ Proud judgment] and McKenzie v New Zealand Proud Kapiti Ltd and Others [2025] NZHC 395 [Second NZ Proud judgment].

4      Recall judgment, above n 3 at [4].

5      First NZ Proud judgment, above n 2, and Second NZ Proud judgment, above n 3.

file a document tendered  for  filing.6  As the  Deputy  Registrar  refused to  accept Mr McKenzie’s documents for filing, it is an intended proceeding.

[11]             Mr McKenzie’s complaints about the Bank’s “deceptive and misleading” conduct, misrepresentations and false aliases, and incorrect transaction logs and balances,7 are virtually identical to those addressed by Gwyn J’s strike-out decision on 27 November 2024.8 Since that decision, Mr McKenzie has amended his statement of claim to no longer rely on the Sentencing Act 2002 as his basis for claiming relief. Instead, he now relies on the Consumer Guarantees Act as his basis for claiming $466 million in respect of each cause of action and, in general, “for being ripped off and gaslit”, consistent with his previously claimed remedy before this Court.9

[12]             Mr McKenzie subsequently appealed Gwyn J’s decision to strike-out his claim under r 5.35B of the HCR to the Court of Appeal.10 On appeal, Mr McKenzie relied on an amended statement of claim but continued to refer to the Crimes Act 1961 and the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court observed that the reference to criminal legislation was misconceived.11 The Court also concluded that the “disconnect between the pleadings”, which referred to a “balance of $168.05” for example, and the relief sought of $466 million highlighted Mr McKenzie’s “improper use of the court’s machinery”.12 The Court concurred with Gwyn J that the pleadings were “plainly an abuse of process”.13 The Court then discussed the alleged breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act confirming that the broad allegations did not plead a cause of action to which the Bank could reasonably respond.14 In its subsequent decision on an application by Mr McKenzie to recall the judgment, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the “broad allegations of criminal offending was not the only reason why [the] appeal was dismissed”.15

6      High Court Rules 2016, r 2.11(1)(b).

7      See above at [2]–[6].

8      McKenzie v the Co-Operative Bank Ltd [2024] NZHC 3573 [Gwyn J’s strike-out judgment].

9 At [18].

10     Strike-out appeal, above n 2.

11     At [25]–[27].

12 At [28].

13 At [28].

14 At [34].

15     Recall judgment, above n 2, at [4].

[13]             I agree with the Deputy Registrar’s assessment that the substance of the causes of action contained in Mr McKenzie’s statement of claim have already been struck out by Gwyn J’s decision, which was upheld on appeal. I do not accept Mr McKenzie’s complaint that it is incorrect to suggest that without the “mix of jurisdictional reliance” of his original application, his statement of claim is no longer an abuse of process.

[14]             The only component of Mr McKenzie’s statement of claim now before me that is not essentially the same as the claims addressed in Gwyn J’s decision is the allegation that the Bank is responsible for causing the loss of bank statements that would otherwise be “integral for settling” Mr McKenzie’s grievance with NZ Proud.

[15]             The Deputy Registrar rightly observed that the claims against NZ Proud have been previously struck out by this Court (that decision is under appeal).16 However, I understand Mr McKenzie’s claim to be against the Bank for causing loss of his “real” bank statements, which would have been evidence against NZ Proud, because the existing statements are “fraudulent or tampered with”. In my view, this is essentially a restatement of Mr McKenzie’s other causes of action which allege that his bank statements are inaccurate or that the Bank has “altered the accounts record”.

[16]             Mr McKenzie’s statement of claim is therefore an attempt to relitigate previous judgments of this Court and the Court of Appeal. It breaches the doctrine of res judicata, which:17

… prevents the Court from opening a matter that has already been subject to litigation, to address issues which were or should have been dealt with as part of previous proceedings. It ensures finality in litigation and prevents parties being subject to the same proceedings twice.

[17]             The Deputy Registrar was correct to refuse Mr McKenzie’s documents for filing. In addition to the reasons of the Court of Appeal determining Mr McKenzie’s claims to be an abuse of process when initially filed,18 I consider that repeated attempts to file essentially the same claim exacerbate his abuse of the Court’s process.

16 First NZ Proud judgment, above n 3 and Second NZ Proud judgment, above n 3.

17   Rabson v Attorney-General  [2013] NZHC 1018 at [19] citing Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 115 and Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1 (HL) as cited in Contact Energy Ltd v Attorney-General [2009] NZCA 351.

18 Strike-out appeal, above n 2, at [28].

Result

[18]             The application to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to accept documents for filing is declined.

La Hood J