One problem, nine systems: How courts are dealing with pseudolaw litigants

Overview

A borrower in default sends a "promissory note" in place of payment. Another returns the default notice marked "conditionally accepted", with a fee schedule attached. A third appears in court and denies that the court has any authority over them.

These are pseudo-legal arguments. They are not new. The people who run them are widely known as sovereign citizens, though courts and researchers increasingly refer to them as "pseudo-law litigants". They borrow a form of legal argument and replace its substance. The research suggests none have succeeded in an Australian court, yet the volume of such claims is increasing.

So a lender's rights are not in doubt. What is in doubt is how long enforcing those rights will take, how many additional steps may be needed and what costs are incurred along the way. Court comments suggest that what used to be a handwritten page or two of "evidence" and argument has become a 60 or 70 page document prepared with generative AI.

While courts are routinely imposing costs orders and other sanctions against parties advancing these pseudo-law arguments, recognising them as a waste of judicial resources and a corrosion of fundamental values underlying the rule of law, each jurisdiction operates under its own court rules. Parliaments are responding, but not together or consistently. Australian courts have been considering the impact of sovereign citizens since at least 2020, however, for a lender with a national portfolio, the same borrower conduct is addressed with a different procedural approach in each jurisdiction. Recent changes in South Australia and Victoria, more awareness around the types of arguments being raised, and support for the judiciary that are considering them should assist in dealing with such arguments going forward.

Where each jurisdiction stands

In 2026, two jurisdictions have moved to address the underlying issues. Victoria now stops pseudo-legal documents at the registry counter. South Australia has amended its vexatious litigant laws for the first time since 1935. Elsewhere, lenders and the courts must rely on the court's general powers to enter summary judgement, strike-out pleadings and make orders under existing vexatious litigant legislation.

Jurisdiction	Where it stands
Victoria	The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently issued Practice Note SC GEN 26, which sets out what is required by self-represented litigants in Supreme Court of Victoria proceedings. While directed at self-represented litigants generally, it confirms that Supreme Court registry staff can reject documents for filing that rely on pseudo-legal arguments. It provides as an Annexure examples of such pseudo-legal arguments including relying on promissory notes and bills of exchange. It cites authorities that have considered the "not real legal arguments" submitted, including the decision of May v HSBC Bank Australia Ltd [2025] VSCA 311, in which borrowers in default on a $576,000 home loan sent the bank a "bill of exchange" and a "promissory note" as purported payment.
South Australia	South Australia is amending its Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) to seek to deal with pseudo-law litigants. The Supreme Court (Vexatious Litigants) Amendment Bill 2026 has passed South Australian parliament, with a commencement date to be confirmed. The amendments to the Supreme Court Act 1935 will allow the Supreme Court to make an order on its own motion including where proceedings are pursued without reasonable ground, or conducted in way that causes "unreasonable annoyance, delay or detriment". It also allows other courts and tribunals to refer a litigant to the Supreme Court for such motions and brings proceedings and orders from other jurisdictions into account. The SA Supreme Court also released Generative AI Guidelines and a Generative AI Information Sheet for Self-Represented Litigants to assist with the use of AI on court procedures generally. In Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Haughton [2020] SASC 135 (and subsequent appeals), the Supreme Court of South Australia comprehensively considered and rejected multiple sovereign citizen arguments raised by the borrower resisting possession proceedings. The Court dismissed arguments that the Australia Acts were invalid, that the Queen of Australia does not exist, that the Commonwealth is a private United States corporation, and that courts are not validly constituted.
New South Wales	In May 2023, NSW Magistrates reported that they dealt with 300 – 400 pseudo-legal arguments in the prior 6 months, noting a significant increase since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Judicial Commission of NSW (in conjunction with the Local Court of NSW) subsequently developed and made available to NSW Magistrates an internal Bench Book document to provide practical assistance to courts considering sovereign citizen arguments. The NSW courts will otherwise use the general powers to deal with pseudo-legal arguments. For example, in National Australia Bank Ltd v Mellander [2023] NSWSC 1171 a borrower relied on a unilateral "agreement", and raised arguments under the Magna Carta to resist a writ of possession. In making the possession order, the Court noted "I confess, I have not found it easy to comprehend the various claims".
Queensland	QLD's Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 is merit-based, meaning an improper motive does not need to be shown in order for a party to classified as a vexatious litigant. Summary judgement remains the application made for lenders in enforcement claims where pseudo-legal arguments are raised. The QLD Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recently discussed sovereign citizen concepts in a case involving a residential possession application under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld),in Hobson v Grant [2025] QCATA 63.
Western Australia	In WA, the courts will use their general powers to deal with pseudo-legal arguments. The Supreme Court of WA has found pseudo-law adherents to be in contempt of court and in cases, sentenced them to terms of imprisonment, for example in Michelmore v Brown [No 7] [2025] WASC 247. Applications for summary judgement remain the approach made for enforcement applications where such arguments are raised and having been variously described as 'nonsense', 'nonsensical', 'fundamentally misguided' and 'gobbledygook', an example being Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Deighton [2024] WASC 410.
Tasmania	No pseudo-law specific measures are in place in Tasmania. As in other states, the court will use its general powers including to strike-out pleadings and grant summary judgement where pseudo-legal arguments are raised. The Tasmanian courts do not seem to encounter as many contested applications as in other jurisdictions.
Northern Territory	No pseudo-law specific measures are in place in the NT. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory recently considered pseudo-legal arguments in Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Oldroyd [2025] NTSC 20. The borrowers submitted that (among other things) the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the proceedings, that they were recognised under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, that the security property was a sacred or heritage site and that all mortgage is a fraud. The court was required to consider and determined each of these submissions, which were ultimately rejected and an order for possession was made.
Australian Capital Territory	No pseudo-law specific measures are in place in the ACT. As in other states, the court will use its general powers including to strike-out pleadings and grant summary judgement where pseudo-legal arguments are raised. As in Tasmania, the ACT courts do not seem to encounter as many contested pseudo-legal applications as other jurisdictions.
Federal Court	The Federal Court does not generally hear mortgagee enforcement matters unless they intersect with Federal Law. The Federal Court does, however, encounter pseudo-law arguments from parties in respect of taxation, bankruptcy and similar matters. Between 2024 and 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia have consistently addressed and rejected sovereign citizen arguments. The Full Federal Court has most recently dealt with pseudo-legal arguments in Tredders Investments Pty Ltd v Channel 9 South Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCAFC 125. The decisions uniformly characterise sovereign citizen arguments as pseudo-law having no foundation in Australian law and systematically dismiss such claims.