O'Neill v Disputes Tribunal - [2016] NZHC 2385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-326 [2016] NZHC 2385

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOHN OʼNEILL
Plaintiff

AND

DISPUTES TRIBUNAL First Defendant

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND Second Defendant

SHARRON GAY MURDOCK and

JAMES LEWIS DAN Third Defendants

Hearing: 6 October 2016

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
First and Second Defendants abiding the Court decision
Third Defendants in person

Judgment:

6 October 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Parties: The Plaintiff
Mr P Gunn and Mr M McKillop, Crown Law, Wellington for the First and Second Defendants
The Third Defendants

OʼNEILL v DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHC 2385 [6 October 2016]

[1] Mr O’Neill has brought an application for judicial review of two decisions:

(a) A decision of the Disputes Tribunal declining a claim by Mr O’Neill against the third defendants, Ms Murdock and Mr Dan, on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.1

(b) A decision of Judge G M Harrison in the District Court dismissing an

appeal by Mr O’Neill against the Tribunal’s decision.2

[2] Mr O’Neill contends that the decision on jurisdiction was wrong in law.

[3] The first and second defendants filed a memorandum seeking leave to be excused further attendance having earlier filed an appearance abiding the decision on the substantive application but reserving rights to be heard on costs and other matters. Ms Murdock and Mr Dan have appeared this morning.

The claim and the decision in the Tribunal

[4] The Disputes Tribunal’s summary of Mr O’Neill’s claim and the Tribunal’s

decision on jurisdiction, were succinct and are conveniently reproduced verbatim:

[1] Mr O’Neill says he ended a 30 year marriage with Ms Murdock in
2010. He is suing her now in 2014 over personal property he says was left at the property where he lived with Ms Murdock prior to 2010. Mr O’Neill says he was wrongfully trespassed from the property in 2010 which he says he has an ownership interest in. He says he could not recover the property due to the trespass and now that it has been delivered to him in 2014 he has found that the property is damaged and some is missing. He has provided a lengthy list of items, some of which are identified in photographs. There is little in the way of evidence of the value of the items or the value of the damage; and some items he says are of sentimental value.

[2] There are issues relevant to the determination of this claim that are beyond the jurisdiction or expertise of this Tribunal to deal with. Was Mr O’Neill a joint owner of the property and therefore a) wrongly trespassed, and b) entitled to store his property there? Was the property he is claiming all his property, or is Ms Murdock entitled to claim a part interest? What are the obligations of a partner, following the ending of the relationship, to care for personal property?

1 O’Neill…

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: [2016] NZHC 2385
Decision Date: 6 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for judicial review brought by Christopher John O'Neill against the Disputes Tribunal, the District Court at Auckland, and third defendants Sharron Gay Murdock and James Lewis Dan. O'Neill sought review of two decisions: first, a decision by the Disputes Tribunal dismissing his claim against Murdock and Dan for lack of jurisdiction, and second, a decision by Judge G M Harrison in the District Court dismissing an appeal against the Tribunal's decision. O'Neill argued that the Tribunal's jurisdictional decision was incorrect. The court examined whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute, which involved claims about personal property left at a former marital home, and whether the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 should have guided the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Tribunal did, in fact, have jurisdiction over the matter, as clarified by an agreement reached between the parties during the proceedings. The court set aside the Tribunal's jurisdictional decision and ordered the Tribunal to rehear O'Neill's claim within the defined scope agreed upon by the parties. The court dismissed O'Neill's application for costs against any party.

Orders