O'Neill v Disputes Tribunal - [2018] NZHC 3259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-947

[2018] NZHC 3259

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
Second Respondent

SHARRON GAY MURDOCK and JAMES LEWIS DAN

Third Respondents

Hearing: 7 December 2018

Appearances:

Applicant in person

First and Second Respondents abide (appearances excused) Third Respondents in person

Judgment:

11 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2018 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Law (Wellington) for First and Second Respondents

O’NEILL v THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 3259 [11 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr O’Neill has twice argued before the Disputes Tribunal that Ms Murdock and Mr Dan owe him $7,985. He claims this is the value of items of personal property they failed to return to him plus the diminution in value of items returned damaged.

[2] On his first attempt, the Disputes Tribunal refused jurisdiction. Eventually, Woodhouse J facilitated an agreement between the parties and then set out the issues arising which were to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.1

[3] The Disputes Tribunal then heard Mr O’Neill’s claim in light of the issues and dismissed it.2 The District Court upheld the Disputes Tribunal.3 Mr O’Neill now seeks judicial review of the decisions of the Disputes Tribunal and the District Court.

Background

[4] Justice Woodhouse’s record of the agreement reached by the parties, and his posing of the issues arising therefrom, are central to Mr O’Neill’s case on review. I set out the relevant passages:

[10]The agreement is as follows:

(a)Attached to this judgment as appendix 1 is a list of chattels prepared by Mr O’Neill and which was attached to his submissions to the Tribunal as exhibit PP. Mr O’Neill expressly confirmed that this is a complete list of all chattels he says he had left at the property where he had lived with Ms Murdock.

(b)Ms Murdock and Mr Dan agree that no item in appendix 1 is owned by or claimed by Ms Murdock or Mr Dan. In particular, Ms Murdock acknowledges that she makes no claim of any sort to any of the chattels in that list pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

(c)The first issue arises from Ms Murdock’s and Mr Dan’s advice that everything in the appendix 1 list was returned to Mr O’Neill either by truck on 27 July 2014, or at a later date in three cartons that were given by Ms Murdock to a police officer for delivery to Mr O’Neill. Mr O’Neill in turn acknowledges that there was a delivery of chattels by truck on

1      O’Neill v Disputes Tribunal [2016] NZHC 2385.
2      O’Neill v Murdock & Dan DC Auckland CIV-2014-094-1781, 1 February 2017.
3      O’Neill v Murdock & Dan [2018]…

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 Disputes Tribunal 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: [2018] NZHC 3259
Decision Date: 11 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Neill v Disputes Tribunal was brought before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, by Christopher Joseph O'Neill, who sought judicial review of decisions made by the Disputes Tribunal and the District Court. O'Neill's dispute with Sharron Gay Murdock and James Lewis Dan centred on the return of personal property and the condition of items that were returned, with O'Neill claiming a total of $7,985 in compensation. The legal issues before the court were whether the Disputes Tribunal erred in its process and findings, and if the District Court's decision to uphold the Disputes Tribunal's ruling was correct.

The court found that O'Neill's criticisms of the Disputes Tribunal's decision were not accurate. The Disputes Tribunal did not dispute the existence of the chattels in question but rather found that O'Neill had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the items were not returned. O'Neill's reliance on his memory and lists prepared years after the fact was insufficient to meet the burden of proof. Furthermore, the court noted that the Disputes Tribunal properly assessed the credibility of the parties and did not err in its findings. The District Court's decision was also affirmed, as the court was limited to considering procedural fairness in its review of the Disputes Tribunal's decision, and found none.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed O'Neill's application for judicial review, upholding the decisions of the Disputes Tribunal and the District Court. The court emphasized that judicial review is focused on the process of decision-making, not the merits of the decision itself. As such, the court found no grounds for overturning the previous rulings. The final orders of the court were that O'Neill's application for judicial review was dismissed, and no further orders were made regarding the underlying dispute between O'Neill and the other parties.

Orders