Ward v ANZ National Bank Ltd

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Russell Stuart Ward and the Russell Ward Family Trust, as plaintiffs, sought to file a statement of claim against ANZ National Bank Ltd and Barfoot & Thompson. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to prevent the mortgagee sale of a property. The Registrar declined to accept the statement of claim for filing due to its failure to comply with Rule 5.26(b). The plaintiffs applied for a review of the Registrar’s decision, which was accepted as an interlocutory application by the court.

The court considered whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to refuse to accept the document for filing due to its substantive defects. The court found that while the document complied with the form requirements, it failed to comply with Rule 5.26(b) in substance. The court held that the Registrar had jurisdiction to refuse to accept the document for filing if it was so plainly defective in substance that it could not be said to be what it purported to be. The court also held that even if the Registrar did not have jurisdiction, the court itself had jurisdiction to direct that the document should not be accepted for filing.

The court found the statement of claim to be unintelligible and confusing. The document contained nonsensical descriptions, extensive details of correspondence and communications between the parties, and pleadings of law and submissions. The court found the claim to be based on an unintelligible basis and found the relief claimed to arise from a promissory estoppel. The court found that the document failed to comply with Rule 5.26(b) and was frivolous and vexatious. The court held that it was in the interests of justice that the defendants not be required to respond to an unintelligible pleading and that the limited resources of the court not be applied to deal with such unintelligible and meaningless documents.

The court declined the application for review and confirmed the Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept the documents for filing. The court held that it was open to the plaintiffs to reformulate the claim in a sensible and meaningful way if they wished to pursue the matter further.