O'Neill v Human Rights Review Tribunal

[2024] NZHC 3444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-275 [2024] NZHC 3444

UNDER

the Constitution of New Zealand the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Respondent

CIV-2024-485-274

UNDER

the Constitution of New Zealand the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	19 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1]                 This judgment concerns two applications for judicial review by Mr O’Neill, the first against the Privacy Commissioner (CIV-2024-485-275) and the second

O’NEILL v PRIVACY COMMISSIONER [2024] NZHC 3444 [19 November 2024]

against the Human Rights Review Tribunal (CIV-2024-485-274). Both proceedings were referred to La Hood J for consideration under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016. He stayed both proceedings until further order of the Court.1 In his judgment, La Hood J:

(a)noted r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases;

(b)summarised the extensive history of  proceedings  commenced  by  Mr O’Neill being struck out as an abuse of process;2

(c)recorded that the claims as presently pleaded contain improper allegations of criminal or corrupt conduct and do not coherently set out the basis for the claim.

[2]                 Generously, La Hood J gave Mr O’Neill a further opportunity to file amended statements of claim removing irrelevant and improper allegations and coherently setting out the basis for his claim in each proceeding. In respect of the proceeding against the Privacy Commissioner, La Hood J set a deadline of 17 July 2024 for filing an amended statement of claim after which the proceeding would be deemed to be struck out without further order of the Court. However, no such deadline was set in respect of the proceeding against the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

[3]                 Mr O’Neill filed more documents but no amended pleading. Radich J assessed Mr O’Neill’s documents to determine whether to lift the stay. He considered that the documents filed were in the form of narratives and submissions and no sufficiently clear basis for Mr O’Neill’s claim could be discerned from them.3

[4]                 Radich J made further directions for the filing of an amended statement of claim in each proceeding. He gave detailed guidance to Mr O’Neill as to what to

1      O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner [2024] NZHC 1523.

2      At [6], and see O’Neill v Commissioner of Police [2021] NZHC 3362 at [13]–[17]; appeal dismissed in O’Neill v Commissioner of Police [2022] NZCA 501 and O’Neill v Commissioner of Police [2023] NZSC 13.

3      O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner HC Wellington CIV-2024-485-275, 24 July 2024 (Minute of Radich J).

include (and not include). He cautioned Mr O’Neill against using vitriolic language or making allegations of criminal or corrupt conduct against the respondents without evidence to support pleadings of that nature. Radich J did not impose a deadline for Mr O’Neill to file amended statements of claim.

[5]                 Mr O’Neill’s interlocutory application for judicial review of a Registrar’s decision to decline to release a document was referred to me. I dismissed that application and directed that unless Mr O’Neill filed amended statement of claims (as directed by La Hood and Radich JJ) by 7 November 2024, then both of his proceedings would be deemed to be struck out without further order of the Court.4

[6]                 Mr O’Neill filed a letter dated 31 October 2024 in response to my minute of 23 October 2024 which contained further unsubstantiated allegations of criminal conduct and corruption against all three of the Judges who have considered the current proceedings. However, Mr O’Neill did not file amended statements of claim. Moreover, the tenor of his letter was that he has no intention of doing so. As at the date of this judgment, no amended statements of claim have been filed.

[7]                 Accordingly, I record that both proceedings are struck out under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules.

[8]                 The Registry is requested to serve a copy of this judgment on the respondents. In accordance with r 5.35B(3), I note that Mr O’Neill has a right to appeal against this decision.

McHerron J

4      O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner HC Wellington CIV-2024-485-275, 23 October 2024 (Minute of McHerron J).