O'Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA149/2025
[2025] NZCA 599

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Appellant
AND	JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER First Respondent DEPUTY JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER Second Respondent

Hearing:	7 October 2025
Court:	Courtney, Venning and Osborne JJ
Counsel:	No appearance for the Appellant Respondents’ appearance excused
Judgment:	14 November 2025 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The decision dismissing the appeal is recalled.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2025, Churchman J struck out proceedings Christopher Joseph O’Neill had purported to file against the
[1]O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2025] NZHC 319.
Judicial Conduct Commissioner (the Commissioner). The Judge relied on r 5.35B(2) of the High Court Rules 2016.[1] Mr O’Neill appealed to this Court against the strike out.
Mr O’Neill failed to appear in support of his appeal when it was called. It was therefore dismissed.
Subsequently, Mr O’Neill advised that he had attended court on the specified day but, as a result of damage to the letter advising him of the time and place for the appeal hearing, he went to the wrong courtroom. Further enquiries within the Registry have shown that Mr O’Neill was inadvertently advised of the wrong courtroom in any event. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to recall our decision dismissing the appeal.
The decision dismissing the appeal is recalled. The appeal is to be allocated a fresh hearing date.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Christopher Joseph O'Neill against the decision of the High Court which dismissed his proceedings against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed due to Mr O'Neill's failure to appear in court, which was attributed to an error in the communication of the hearing details and an inadvertent error by the court registry. The court subsequently recalled the dismissal and ordered a fresh hearing date for the appeal. The main legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to recall its earlier decision dismissing the appeal and to set a new hearing date. The court found that recalling the decision was within its jurisdiction, especially given the circumstances of the case, and that it was appropriate to do so to ensure fairness and justice.

The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that Mr O'Neill did not receive the correct information regarding the hearing time and place due to a damaged letter and an error in the registry's communication. The Court found that Mr O'Neill's failure to appear was not due to any fault of his own but rather due to systemic errors. The Court noted that recalling the decision and setting a new hearing date would ensure that Mr O'Neill had a fair opportunity to present his appeal. The Court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to recall the earlier decision and that doing so was in the interests of justice.

The appeal was dismissed initially due to Mr O'Neill's non-appearance. However, upon learning of the errors in the communication and the inadvertent error by the court registry, the Court of Appeal recalled its earlier decision. The Court found that the circumstances warranted a fresh hearing to allow Mr O'Neill to properly present his appeal. The Court of Appeal recalled the decision dismissing the appeal and ordered that a new hearing date be set. The appeal was to be heard on a date to be determined by the Court of Appeal Registry.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established