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.

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 MacPherson 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: [2025] NZHC 306
Decision Date: 26 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an application for judicial review, Christopher Joseph O’Neill filed a claim against Liz MacPherson. The claim was made in the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry. The applicant's statement of claim and accompanying submissions are difficult to understand and lack any recognisable legal cause of action. The applicant seeks a judicial ruling on various matters, including the validity of the respondent's decisions and actions, but does not provide any specific references to statutes, regulations, or case law. The claim also contains extravagant allegations of corruption and impropriety without any supporting facts.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolve around the sufficiency and clarity of the applicant's statement of claim and accompanying submissions. The court must determine whether the proceedings are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, as defined under the High Court Rules 2016. The court also considered whether the applicant's claims and allegations were supported by any specific facts or legal arguments.

The court found that the applicant's statement of claim did not disclose a recognisable cause of action and contained extravagant allegations of corruption and impropriety without any supporting facts. The court held that the proceedings were plainly an abuse of the process of the Court and struck them out pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. The court also advised the applicant of his right to appeal the decision.

The court's final orders were that the proceedings were struck out, and the applicant was advised of his right to appeal the decision.

Orders