O'Neill v Leaupepe - [2023] NZHC 2574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-000537

[2023] NZHC 2574

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

SUE LEAUPEPE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

14 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 September 2023 at 3 am/pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

O’NEILL v LEAUPEPE [2023] NZHC 2574 [14 September 2023]

[1] The applicant has tendered for filing in the Wellington Registry of the High Court an application for Judicial Review against the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

[2] The application has now been referred to me as Duty Judge under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules). This is the second of three proposed applications for judicial review by Mr O’Neill which have come before me.

[3]Rule 5.35A provides:

5.35A Registrar may refer plainly abusive proceeding to Judge before service

(1)This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.

(3)However, the Registrar may,—

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) to serve the proceeding.

[4] Proceedings referred under r 5.35A are considered by a Judge under r 5.35B which provides:

5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

(1)This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceeding under rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—

(a)the proceeding be struck out:

(b)the proceeding be stayed until further order:

(c)documents for service be kept by the court and not be served until the stay is lifted:

(d)no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order (for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).

(3)Rule 7.43(3) does not apply. However, if a Judge makes an order on the Judge’s own initiative without giving the person who filed the proceeding an opportunity to be heard, the order must contain a statement of that person’s right to appeal against…

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 Leaupepe 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: [2023] NZHC 2574
Decision Date: 14 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for judicial review by Christopher Joseph O'Neill against Sue Leaupepe, the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The case centred around the Registrar's refusal to accept certain leave applications for filing due to non-conformity with the Supreme Court Rules 2004. O'Neill, dissatisfied with the Registrar's subsequent response to his complaints, sought judicial review, alleging that the Registrar's actions usurped the authority of the courts and amounted to corruption and criminality. The court was required to decide whether the proceeding was an abuse of process and whether the Registrar's response to O'Neill's complaint was reviewable.

The court held that O'Neill's interpretation of previous court decisions was flawed and that the relief he sought was misconceived. The Registrar's decision to respond to O'Neill's complaint was not reviewable as it did not usurp any supervisory function of the Court. Furthermore, the original decision complained of had been rendered moot by the acceptance of revised documents for filing, with no adverse consequences for O'Neill. The court found that the proceeding was an abuse of process, and therefore struck it out. O'Neill was notified of his right to appeal against this decision.

In summary, the court dismissed O'Neill's application for judicial review, finding it to be misdirected, misconceived and an abuse of process. The Registrar's response to O'Neill's complaint was not reviewable, and the original decision had been rendered moot. O'Neill was given the right to appeal the decision.

Orders