| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA |
| SC 56/2023 [2023] NZSC 105 |
| BETWEEN | CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL |
| AND | JUDICIARY OF AUCKLAND HIGH COURT, REGISTRY OF AUCKLAND HIGH COURT AND PERSONS AS YET UNKNOWN |
| Court: | Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 10 August 2023 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
The applicant filed an application in the High Court styled as “an application to the head-of‑bench, and formal complaint to same”. The Registrar of the High Court referred this application to a High Court Judge under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 for consideration under r 5.35B. Rule 5.35B empowers a judge to strike out or make other directions in relation to a proceeding if satisfied the proceeding is “plainly an abuse” of the High Court’s process. The High Court Judge then issued a judgment striking out the applicant’s proceeding.[1]
The applicant appealed against the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was set down for hearing and, after the applicant did not appear, was set down for hearing again two days later. The applicant also failed to appear on the second occasion. The Court then decided to deal with the appeal on the papers and dismissed the appeal, giving its reasons a month or so later.[2] The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court to strike out the applicant’s proceeding. The way the Court of Appeal dealt with the appeal in that Court mirrored the way it dealt with another appeal by the applicant to that Court, O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner.[3]
[2]O’Neill v Judiciary of Auckland High Court [2023] NZCA 153 (Courtney, Lang and Downs JJ).
The applicant now applies for leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
This Court must not give leave to appeal unless satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[4] Section 74(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 sets out the criteria for determining whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave.
[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(1).
The applicant makes the same points about the Court of Appeal’s process as he did in his appeal against O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner. We addressed those points in our judgment dealing with the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to this Court against that decision.[5] We apply the same analysis to the present application, but do not repeat it in the present judgment.
In his submission to this Court, the applicant says his application to the High Court was not intended to be a case. He said the application he filed in the High Court should have been referred to the Head of Bench of the High Court. If that is the case, there would be no point in giving leave to appeal to this Court in relation to a case the applicant does not wish to pursue as a court proceeding.
In any event, there is no basis to contest the findings of the Courts below that the application to the High Court did not set out a legal cause of action, did not adequately identify the proposed defendants and, to the extent it related to particular judges, was confronted with the absolute immunity from suit that judges have.
If the applicant wishes to make a complaint about the conduct of any judge or judges that is within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, he should direct his complaint to the Commissioner, not the courts.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The respondents were not required to file submissions and, in those circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
- AGLC
- O'Neill v Judiciary of Auckland High Court [2023] NZSC 105
- Case
- [2023] NZSC 105
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal correctly dismissed O'Neill's appeal and whether it was in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal. The Court considered whether O'Neill's application was indeed a misuse of the court's process and whether there were any grounds to contest the findings of the lower courts. The Court also assessed whether the applicant's complaint about the conduct of judges should have been addressed by the courts or referred to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
The Supreme Court found that O'Neill's application to the High Court was indeed an abuse of process and lacked a legal cause of action. The Court noted that O'Neill's assertions that his application was not intended as a court proceeding did not alter the fact that his application was struck out by the High Court and the Court of Appeal for valid reasons. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no basis to contest the findings of the lower courts and that any complaints about judicial conduct should be directed to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner rather than the courts. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
The Supreme Court's decision effectively ends O'Neill's attempts to challenge the decisions of the Auckland High Court and its judiciary through the courts. The Court's dismissal of the application for leave to appeal reinforces the importance of the courts being used for legitimate legal proceedings and not as a means to address grievances that fall outside the judicial process. O'Neill's recourse, if any, lies with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner for complaints about judicial conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.