STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSON v NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED, NZI SECURITIES LIMITED AND NZI FINANCE LIMITED [2023] NZCA 463

STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSON v NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCES LIMITED, NZI SECURITIESLIMITED AND NZI FINANCE LIMITED [2023] NZCA 463 [21 September 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA333/2023[2023] NZCA 463BETWEEN STEPHEN GILBERT ANDERSONAppellantAND NZI INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCESLIMITED, NZI SECURITIES LIMITEDAND NZI FINANCE LIMITEDRespondentsCourt: Miller and Brown JJCounsel: Appellant in personJudgment:(On the papers)21 September 2023 at 2.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is struck out.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] On 10 July 2023 this Court gave Mr Anderson notice under r 44A of the Courtof Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 of its intention to consider striking out his appeal on theground that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.As required by r 44A, Mr Anderson has been given an opportunity to makesubmissions.[2] The judgment under appeal was delivered on 22 June 2023 by Dunningham J,striking out an application by Mr Anderson as an abuse of the process of the Court.1The Judge accurately described Mr Anderson's application as one seeking damagespursuant to a decision of Holland J dated 19 November 1987. In that decisionHolland J had granted an interim injunction in Mr Anderson's favour restrainingfinance companies from proceeding with a mortgagee sale of his farm on the groundthat statutory notice requirements had not been complied with.2 However, Holland Jacknowledged that Mr Anderson was in default and the defendants might simply issueanother notice giving him proper time to remedy the breach and then proceed with amortgagee sale.3 That is what happened. All of the defendants have since beenliquidated and deregistered.[3] Mr Anderson attempted to relitigate the issues in 1999, filing a new proceedingwhich was struck out.4 In 2005 he filed a further application, effectively seeking tohave the proceeding in which Holland J granted the interim injunction set down forsubstantive hearing. Chisholm J declined to do so, noting that the proceeding had beendormant for 18 years and stating that there was no prospect of the Court allowing it tobe reactivated.5 Apart from the fact that the defendants were no longer on the register,the claim would be barred by the Limitation Act 1950.6 Further, the 1999 decisionstriking out a proceeding which sought essentially the same relief had not beenappealed.7[4] Mr Anderson appealed the decision of Chisholm J, without success. This Courtfound that Mr Anderson could not point to any unlawful act of the defendants leadingto the sale of his property and dismissed the appeal in a judgment dated16 March 2006.81 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd [2023] NZHC 1561.2 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd HC Dunedin CP113/87, 19 November 1987.3 At 12.4 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd HC Dunedin CP43/99, 1 September 1999.5 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd HC Dunedin CIV-2005-412-610, 20 October 2005at [5(a)–(b)].6 At [5(c)].7 At [5(d)].8 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd CA242/05, 16 March 2006 at [9]–[10].[5] In 2022 Mr Anderson asked the Court to recall its 2006 decision. The Courtdeclined to do so.9 An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court wasdismissed.10 In dealing with what amounted to an application to bring an appeal directfrom the High Court's 1999 decision, the Supreme Court stated that the 1987proceedings were effectively at an end.11[6] It is clear from the submissions which he has filed in connection with thepresent decision that Mr Anderson is still advancing the same claim, relying on theinterim injunction granted by Holland J and contending that the predatory behaviourof the defendants led to a disadvantageous sale and resulted in his creditors remainingunpaid.[7] We are satisfied that this appeal is yet another attempt to relitigate a closedproceeding. As such it is a plain abuse of process. It is struck out.9 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd [2022] NZCA 167.10 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd [2022] NZSC 85.11 Anderson v NZI International Acceptances Ltd [2023] NZSC 64 at [12].