O'Neil

[2025] NZHC 619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-060

CIV-2025-485-062 [2025] NZHC 619

UNDER

section 171 of the Senior Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

a challenge to recuse a judge

AND

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	24 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Recusal application]

[1]        On 19 March 2025 Christopher Joseph O’Neill filed a handwritten document which appears to be an application that I recuse myself.

[2]        The document has been drafted by Mr O’Neil in person and it is not easy to follow. At one point he says:

This challenge is to Churchman J in regard to his having anything whatsoever to do with me or mine for the rest of his life.

O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2025] NZHC 319

[3]        On 27 February 2025 I struck out these proceedings pursuant to r 5.35B(2) of the High Court Rules 2016. That decision brought these proceedings to an end as far as the High Court is concerned. There is therefore nothing in the High Court for a recusal application to relate to.

A challenge to recuse a judge v O’NEILL [2025] NZHC 619 [24 March 2025]

[4]        Mr O’Neill has his right of appeal but it is not clear whether he has exercised that.

Christopher Joseph O’Neill v MacPherson [2025] NZHC 306

[5]        On  26  February  2025  I  also  struck  these  proceedings  out  pursuant  to    r 5.35B(2)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. That decision concluded these proceedings in this Court. Again, there is no indication that Mr O’Neill has pursued his right of appeal. Accordingly, there is no live issue before the Court to which a recusal application could attach.

Recusal

[6]        For the reasons set out in Body Corporate 810112, 68792 and 378945 v Memelink and Forster1 the fact that a litigant does not like a decision made against him by a judge does not provide a basis for the litigant to have the judge recuse him or herself from presiding over further matters involving that litigant in the future.

[7]For these reasons Mr O’Neill’s application is dismissed.

Churchman J

1      Body Corporate 810112, 68792 and 378945 v Memelink and Forster [2023] NZHC 835 [28]– [35].