O'Neill v MacPherson

[2025] NZHC 306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-062

[2025] NZHC 306

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

LIZ MACPHERSON

Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	26 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1]    On 28 January 2025, the Registrar of the Wellington High Court, received a notice of proceeding, statement of claim, and set of submissions in this matter. The documents have been referred to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR). The 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]    Under HCR 5.35B, if I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, I may:

(a)strike it out;

(b)stay it until further order;

O’NEILL v MACPHERSON [2025] NZHC 306 [26 February 2025]

(c)direct that documents for service be kept by the Court and not served until the stay is lifted; or

(d)direct that no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order.

The claim

[3]    Both the statement of claim and the submissions filed with it are difficult to understand. The statement of claim identifies the nature of the claim as being a:

Request for judicial ruling of the validity and legal correctness of various decisions and actions of the respondent which [affect] my access to justice, and my health and longevity.

[4]The relief sought is said to be:

Judicial ruling re the following…

A)Did justice ensue via a process correct?

B)Was justice denied by a process incorrect?

C)Acknowledgement that the respondent via numerous avenues and actions is trying to kill me.

D)Are the lives of others at risk by the current processes.

[5]The document refers to a number of statutes or legal concepts including:

(a)the constitution of New Zealand;

(b)the New Zealand Bill of Rights;

(c)the Official Information Act;

(d)the legislated protections of the Privacy Act;

(e)the legislated protections of the Health Information Privacy Code;

(f)the legislated protections of the Health and Disability Patients Code of Rights; and

(g)all and any other protections afforded the citizens of New Zealand that they not be harmed, tortured or killed by rogue government officials with a vendetta against a citizen.

[6]    No attempt is made to identify any relevant provisions in any of the statutes referred to or any specific decisions to which the references might relate.

[7]    Attached to the statement of claim is a document entitled “memorandum — schedule 10”. The document refers to withheld documents, suggests the Attorney-General should be party to these proceedings, seeks urgency and suggests the respondent is trying to harm or kill Mr O’Neill.

[8]    It is not possible to identify any legally recognised cause of action from the statement of claim document.

Submissions

[9]    The submissions are drafted in a similar manner. They refer to Mr O’Neill being under the care of doctors and requesting a renewal of a prescription. The prescription was apparently refused by email and Mr O’Neill expresses the view that the email was AI generated.

[10]   There is reference to Mr O’Neill  having  laid  a  complaint  with  the  Privacy Commissioner regarding a lack of “response” (presumably, a response from the un-named medical practice).

[11]   The submissions claim that the respondent sent letters to Mr O’Neill with addresses that were handwritten, stuck on with tape and stamps rather than franking. He claims that the correspondence is not going through the normal process and is dealt with in secret by the respondent. The submissions also refer to what is said to be secret correspondence from the Privacy Commissioner to a judge and “secret representation at the Supreme Court of the Privacy Commissioner”. These claims appear

unconnected with the statement of claim. The submissions finish by asking a number of questions.

[12]   The submissions claim that the Privacy  Commissioner is  trying  to “kill”  Mr O’Neill “via corruption and the help of this Court.” No details are provided.

[13]   The submissions then proceed to make various allegations against un-named judges that also appear to have no connection with anything relevant to what is pleaded in the statement of claim.

The strike out test

[14]   The concept of a proceeding being “plainly abusive” is not defined in either rr 5.35A or 5.35B. Lack of a valid cause of action or incomprehensibility of a proceeding have been held to have met the statutory test.1

[15]   Proceedings that do not set out a legal cause of action, let alone one that could properly be brought against the defendant have been held to plainly be an abuse of the process of the Court.2

[16]   The statement of claim does not disclose a recognisable cause of legal action. It also contains allegations of corruption or impropriety that are extravagant and lack any specific allegations of fact that might support them.3

[17]   Therefore, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to strike these proceedings out pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a) of the HCR.

[18]   Pursuant to r 5.35B(3) of the HCR, I advise Mr O’Neill that he has a right to appeal this decision.

Churchman J

1      O’Neill v Judiciary of Auckland High Court [2023] NZCA 153.

2      Smyth-Davoren v Parker [2018] NZHC 3034 at [7].

3      See O’Neill v Commissioner of Police [2022] NZCA 501 at [26].