Legal Research
Cases
O'Neill v Bridgman

O'Neill v Bridgman

Case [2020] NZCA 460 30 September 2020

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA229/2019
[2020] NZCA 460

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Appellant
AND	ANDREW BRIDGMAN First Respondent TANIA OTT Second Respondent CARL CRAFAR Third Respondent

Hearing:	31 August 2020
Court:	Kós P, Wylie and Muir JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person J B Watson for First, Second and Third Respondents
Judgment:	30 September 2020 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellant must pay the respondents’ costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Wylie J)

Introduction

The appellant — Christopher O’Neill — appeals a decision given in the High Court at Wellington by Thomas J.[1] The Judge struck out a statement of claim filed by Mr O’Neill, holding that it was an abuse of the Court’s processes and that it did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action.

Background

[1]O’Neill v Bridgman [2019] NZHC 944 [High Court judgment].

Mr O’Neill is a prolific litigant. His statement of claim at issue in this appeal seeks to review actions (and inactions) attributed to the first respondent, Andrew Bridgman, who was at all material times the Secretary for Justice, the second respondent, Tania Ott, who was a senior officer in the Ministry of Justice and the third respondent, Carl Crafar, also a senior officer in the Ministry of Justice.
The statement of claim is relatively brief. Mr O’Neill alleges that the respondents either individually or collectively failed to discharge their respective duties, by disregarding or failing to action complaints he had made against various registrars, deputy registrars and other court staff (collectively court officers). The claims made are extravagant — that he has been denied justice; that the respondents have acted to pervert the course of justice; that Ms Ott belittled and bullied him; that Mr Crafar acted criminally to pervert justice and that Mr Crafar conspired with Mr Bridgman and Ms Ott to this end.
On 16 August 2018, Crown Law, on behalf of the respondents, sent a letter to Mr O’Neill noting that, in their view, the statement of claim did not fairly inform the respondents of the issues they had to meet and did not comply with rr 5.26 and 5.27 of the High Court Rules 2016. Copies of these rules were sent to Mr O’Neill. He was invited to replead his claim.
On 9 October 2018, following a case management conference, Thomas J issued a minute in which she noted “[a]s explained to Mr O’Neill, it is crucial that the exact nature of his claim is clarified before any further steps in these proceedings are taken.”[2] The Judge adjourned the case management conference to give Mr O’Neill the opportunity to clarify his pleadings.
[2]O’Neill v Bridgman HC Wellington CIV-2018-485-502, 9 October 2018 (Minute of Thomas J) at [5].
Following this minute, Crown Law wrote again to Mr O’Neill, asking him to identify clearly each and every decision of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading O'Neill v Bridgman

Details

AGLC: O'Neill v Bridgman [2020] NZCA 460
Case: [2020] NZCA 460
Decision Date: 30 September 2020 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Neill v Bridgman involved an appeal by Christopher O'Neill against a decision of the High Court to strike out his statement of claim. The respondents were Andrew Bridgman, Tania Ott, and Carl Crafar, all of whom held positions in the Ministry of Justice. O'Neill's statement of claim sought to review the actions and inactions of the respondents in relation to complaints he had made about various court officers. The High Court found that the statement of claim was an abuse of process and did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court's decision, finding that O'Neill's statement of claim was vexatious, lacked clarity, and amounted to an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal also held that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action because the respondents had no power to investigate or discipline court officers in relation to decisions made in the course of discharging the court's processes. The appeal was dismissed, and O'Neill was ordered to pay the respondents' costs for the appeal.

The legal issues in this case centred around the requirements for a statement of claim under the High Court Rules and the principles of abuse of process and separation of powers. The Court of Appeal considered whether O'Neill's statement of claim met the necessary standards of clarity and whether it disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action. The Court also examined the doctrine of separation of powers and the extent to which the respondents could be held responsible for the actions of court officers in the discharge of their judicial functions. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, finding that O'Neill's statement of claim was defective and did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. The appeal was dismissed, and O'Neill was ordered to pay the respondents' costs for the appeal.

Orders