O'Neill v Bridgman - [2019] NZHC 944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-502

[2019] NZHC 944

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

ANDREW BRIDGMAN

First Respondent

TANIA OTT
Second Respondent

CARL CRAFAR

Third Respondent

Hearing: 21 March 2019

Counsel:

Applicant in Person (via AVL from Auckland) A F Todd and J B Watson for Respondents

Judgment:

1 May 2019

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

Introduction

[1] Christopher O’Neill can fairly be described as a serial litigant. Representing himself, he has been involved in numerous proceedings in a range of judicial bodies, including the Human Rights Tribunal, Disputes Tribunal, District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.1

1 In Attorney-General v O’Neill [2008] NZAR 93 (HC) [Vexatious litigant decision] the Court noted, at [96], that, as of late 2007, “Mr O’Neill’s cases equated to approximately 57 per cent of the Human Rights Review Tribunal’s then live active case load”. See also: O’Neill v The Privacy Commissioner HC Auckland CIV-2007-404-007412, 15 May 2008; O’Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-8482, 25 June 2009; O’Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-8482, 14 December 2009; O’Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-8482, 31 March 2010; O’Neill

O’NEILL v BRIDGMAN [2019] NZHC 944 [1 May 2019]

[2] Mr O’Neill is the subject of a vexatious litigant order in the Human Rights Tribunal.2

[3] At issue in this decision is whether Mr O’Neill’s application for judicial review against the former Secretary for Justice and two senior civil servants should be struck out. Mr O’Neill alleges the respondents have failed in their duty to implement the Ministry of Justice disciplinary process policy against various Ministry employees, primarily registrars, in the High Court. He alleges the three respondents have conspired to pervert the course of justice as a result.

Background

[4] The statement of claim in this proceeding is two and a quarter pages long and provides as follows:

Statement of claim.

That – first respondent, Andrew Bridgman, failed to fulfil his duty, and legal obligations as secretary for justice, and chief executive

That – as a result of the actions of the first respondent I was denied justice, and justice was perverted

That – the first respondent failed to implement, or cause to be implemented the “disciplinary process policy” decreed by his employers the ministry of justice

That – the first respondent failed to acknowledge complaint laid with him, nor communicate his intention re its investigation, that i know of the process

That – the second respondent Tania Ott, acting allegedly on the instruction belittled me and my most serious complaints re the perversion of justice

That – she bullied me with her position and station, claimed my complaints groundless and failed to implement the “disciplinary process policy” decreed by her employers the ministry for justice

v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Auckland, 22 December 2010; O’Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation HC Auckland, CIV-2008-404-8482, 1 April 2011; O’Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZHC 2823;

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Neill v Bridgman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 944
Decision Date: 1 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether Christopher O'Neill's application for judicial review against Andrew Bridgman and two other respondents should be struck out. O'Neill, who is a serial litigant, alleged that the respondents failed in their duty to implement the Ministry of Justice disciplinary process policy against various Ministry employees, primarily registrars, in the High Court. The respondents argued that the statement of claim was defective and amounted to an abuse of process. The court had to determine whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action and whether it was an abuse of process. The court found that the statement of claim was defective, mixed allegations of fact and law, and did not identify a legal basis for the claims or identify the central facts upon which O'Neill relied. The over 250-page document provided by O'Neill not only contained a large quantity of irrelevant (and objectionable) material but it was unreasonable to expect the respondents to sift through it in order to understand O'Neill's claim. The court found that the statement of claim was unlikely to improve and that the claim was an abuse of process. The court also found that the claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. The court concluded that the proceeding was not capable of being reformulated so that it complied with the Rules and ought to be dismissed in its entirety. The statement of claim was struck out, and O'Neill's application for judicial review was dismissed in its entirety. The respondents were awarded costs on a 2B basis.

Orders