Abstract
Hundreds of cases are heard in the High Court of New Zealand each year. Only a few receive attention in the media. One of those cases was handed down in August 2022. On appeal, in James v District Court at Whanganui [2022] NZHC 2196 (31 August 2022), a self-represented litigant argued that he did not have to register his dog under s 42 of the Dog Control Act 1996, because ‘Connor’ – a Hungarian Vizsla – was a legal person, and a ‘Person does not have to Register with a Local Authority or wear a collar or be restrained by a leash’ (at [3]). As Gwyn J noted, two themes underlaid the applicant’s submissions: that he is a ‘sovereign person’ beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and that the Court requires consent for legitimacy, and he has not given his consent to be bound by its processes (at [13]). Unfortunately for the applicant, his case was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs. The case of James is but one example of a growing number of cases concerning ‘pseudolaw’ – where litigants misuse the forms of legal argumentation while advancing strange and fanciful substantive arguments.Cases involving pseudo law are increasingly posing a challenge to the smooth operation of courts on both sides of the Tasman Sea.