O'Neill v Maidment
[2025] NZCA 268
•24 June 2025
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA541/2024 |
| BETWEEN | CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL |
| AND | REX MAIDMENT |
| CA90/2025 | ||
| BETWEEN | CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL | |
| AND | PRIVACY COMMISSIONER | |
| CA194/2025 | ||
| BETWEEN | CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL | |
| AND | HIGH COURT HEADS OF BENCH, CURRENT AND PAST | |
| Court: | Mallon and Woolford JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 24 June 2025 at 12 pm |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for an extension of time to appeal in CA541/2024 is declined.
BThe appeals in CA90/2025 and CA194/2025 are struck out.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Mallon J)
Introduction
Mr O’Neill seeks to appeal three decisions of the High Court each striking out judicial review proceedings as an abuse of process. He applies for an extension of time to bring an appeal in respect of the first decision. He has filed notices of appeal in respect of the second and third decisions. The issue before us is whether these appeals should each be struck out as an abuse of process.[1]
Extension of time/strike out of CA541/2024
[1]In this Court, Cooke J directed that: the appeals be considered for strike out as abuses of process under r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005; the application for an extension of time be considered at the same time; and the respondents were not required to participate.
In 2022 Mr O’Neill filed a judicial review application in the High Court against Rex Maidment, the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO), and Jan Pilkington, who we understand to be a Ministry of Justice official who at the relevant times provided administrative support to the LCRO. A Registrar referred the application to Moore J as a plainly abusive proceeding under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. In a judgment given on 21 December 2023, the Judge considered the application disclosed no reviewable error in any aspect of the LCRO’s actions or decisions and that the proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules.[2]
[2]O’Neill v Maidment [2023] NZHC 3868 at [11]–[12].
It appears that Mr O’Neill corresponded with the Chief High Court Judge on 15 July 2024. This correspondence was referred to the Registrar of the High Court in Auckland. By letter dated 6 August 2024 sent to the address on Mr O’Neill’s 15 July 2024 correspondence, the Registrar said he understood Mr O’Neill to be saying that he had not received a copy of Moore J’s judgment. The Registrar explained that a copy of the judgment had been couriered to the address listed on the notice of proceedings and no non-delivery notification had been received from the courier company. Nevertheless, the Registrar enclosed a copy of the judgment with his 6 August 2024 letter.
Mr O’Neill wishes to appeal Moore J’s judgment. An extension of time is needed because he did not file his appeal within the statutory timeframe. On 22 August 2024 Mr O’Neill applied for an extension of time to appeal Moore J’s judgment. He says the judgment was sent to the wrong address “deliberately no doubt” for the purposes of preventing an appeal. He further says that the 6 August 2024 letter from the Registrar is sufficient evidence of this and that it should result in the automatic granting of an extension of time.
Mr O’Neill has not provided affidavit evidence explaining when he moved address and whether he arranged for correspondence or deliveries to be forwarded to his new address. However, even if we accept that the delay in filing an appeal has been explained by Mr O’Neill having moved address, it does not follow that an extension of time to appeal should be granted. Although minor delays in exercising a right to appeal which are promptly corrected should generally not be fatal to bringing an appeal, the ultimate question is what the interests of justice require.[3]
[3]Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [37]–[39].
An extension of time may also be refused where an appeal “would be hopeless” because it “could not possibly succeed”.[4] This is the case here. Moore J’s judgment carefully reviewed Mr O’Neill’s “wide ranging” grounds for his judicial review application, explained why the only decision expressly referred to in his application did not give rise to any reviewable error, and why his claims of a “secret” hearing and that the respondents “interfered” with his application despite conflicts of interest were not available or correct.[5]
[4]At [39(c)].
[5]O’Neill v Maidment, above n 2, at [4] and [8]–[9].
In the various documents Mr O’Neill has filed in this Court about this matter a range of extravagant claims are made. Of those that relate directly to his proposed appeal it appears that his intended grounds would make wildly improper claims about Moore J. For example, he says that the Judge struck out his application “because the respondents hold sway over his alma mater” and the Judge “withheld his ruling from me so I could not appeal within the timeframe … [and] blames his registry staff for this”. We also note that after Cooke J directed that Mr O’Neill’s appeals be considered for strike out, Mr O’Neill filed a document alleging impropriety on the part of Cooke J and alleged his actions were “solely to pervert justice, deny me same, protect his alma mata [sic] the respondents and those they allegedly police, and protect one of his own, the presiding Judge Moore”.
In short, Mr O’Neill’s submissions on the extension of time did not advance any credible reasons for why one should be granted. No conceivably arguable error has been identified in Mr O’Neill’s documents. Rather, it is apparent that any such appeal will simply provide a forum for Mr O’Neill to continue with his nonsense and baseless claims. It follows that the application for an extension of time to appeal in CA541/2024 is declined. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether to strike out the proposed appeal as an abuse of process.
Strike out of CA90/2025 and CA194/2025
Appeal in CA90/2025
CA90/2025 relates to an application made by Mr O’Neill in the High Court for judicial review of the Privacy Commissioner and Deputy Privacy Commissioner. A Registrar of the High Court referred the application to McQueen J under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules. The Judge considered that the claim was not clearly drafted but understood it to relate to a decision of the Privacy Commissioner not to investigate a complaint made by Mr O’Neill.[6] The Judge also considered that the claim contained improper allegations of impropriety and criminal conduct against the Privacy Commissioner and Deputy Privacy Commissioner.[7]
[6]O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner [2024] NZHC 3731 at [21].
[7]At [22].
However, because the Judge could not exclude the possibility that the matters pleaded by Mr O’Neill could found a claim in judicial review, the Judge made directions under r 5.35B(2), rather than striking out the claim as an abuse at that stage. Those directions included that if no compliant amended statement of claim was filed by 5 pm on Tuesday 21 January 2025, the proceeding would be deemed to be struck out without further order of the Court.[8]
[8]At [30].
Mr O’Neill did not file an amended statement of claim and documents in support of his claim by the deadline given. He did however write to the Registry on 9 January 2025, claiming that the deadline of 21 January 2025 was unfair and amounted to a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice, requesting further clarification on what the improper allegations were, and an extension of time for six weeks following that clarification. The Registry advised Mr O’Neill that his application would not be considered until 3 February 2025 following the Court’s summer break. Mr O’Neill did not correspond further nor file an amended statement of claim. The matter was referred back to the Judge. On 3 February 2025 the Judge struck out the proceeding.[9]
[9]O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner HC Wellington CIV-2024-485-714, 3 February 2025.
Mr O’Neill appeals this decision. His proposed appeal sets out his claim that he has been denied access to his medical records. He also takes issue with the way McQueen J dealt with his proposed claim including the limited time he had to file an amended claim. He then goes on to set out a range of actions of the Judge he says are the subject of complaint to the Attorney-General, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judge’s Head of Bench. These include that “McQueen ‘WILL’ interfere with the hearing of this case, he/she is unwell and cannot help him/herself he/she panics and acts irrationally”,[10] and that they “address all other issues that the rogue and criminal Judge has orchestrated.” An attached memorandum includes Mr O’Neill’s comments that “I request the interim relief of the protection against McQueen and all he/she instructs and of Brewer – Miller & Moore ‘etc’”,[11] and “I do not know how long a hearing into judicial corruption is likely to take”.
Appeal in CA194/2025
[10]Underlining in original.
[11]Underlining in original.
CA194/2025 relates to an application made by Mr O’Neill in the High Court for judicial review. The named respondents are the “Heads of Bench, High Court, current and past”, the “Chief District Court Judge, past”, the “Attorney-General, past”, the “Minister of Justice, past”, the “Minister of Police, past” and the “Commissioner of Police, past”.[12]
[12]In subsequent documentation he has identified the persons his application relates to.
The application sets out the background. Mr O’Neill says a District Court Judge directive issued to police in March 2011 was “totally ignored”. He says that when he applied to search the court file in 2014, the CD containing the directive had gone missing. He alleged this was due to criminal conduct on the part of the (then) Chief District Court Judge. He says a further directive was issued by the District Court which was also ignored. In 2016 he attempted to file an application for judicial review that he says was ignored by the Registry, and the current Chief High Court Judge referred the matter to the Registrar and another “whitewash” occurred. We note that, contrary to these claims, the 2016 application was, in fact, rejected for filing.
The present application was referred to Gault J under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules who struck out the proceeding as an abuse of process. In doing so the Judge said:[13]
(a)the Court had no jurisdiction to hear judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions made by its own judges;
(b)proceedings against an individual judge in relation to their official capacity are plainly an abuse of process;
(c)references to criminality are scandalous; and
(d)it was an abuse to revisit Mr O’Neill’s 2016 application for judicial review, which was not accepted for filing.
[13]O’Neill v High Court Heads of Bench, Current and Past HC Auckland CIV-2025-404-347, 20 March 2025 at [13].
Mr O’Neill now appeals Gault J’s decision. He has filed several documents in relation to this matter. These documents are littered with the kind of baseless extravagant claims of his other documents, for example that “[i]t is a matter in which three heads-of-bench have acted criminally to protect police and in which a Chief District Court Judge has also”.
Discussion
The principles guiding when the Court will strike out an appeal are well settled, and have been applied in other decisions of this Court striking out other appeals brought by Mr O’Neill over the years.
For example, in O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, this Court expressed the question as being whether right-thinking people would regard the Court as exercising very poor control of its process if it was to permit the matter to proceed further.[14]
[14]O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2023] NZCA 152 at [30].
And in O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society, this Court said:[15]
[17] The correct question is whether the proper administration of justice requires that the court should intervene. Limits are enforced because it is inimical to the administration of justice to permit abusive behaviour in a public forum where speech is protected by absolute privilege. Misuse of the judicial process causes unfairness for others involved, including the opposing party. It also undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. Courts must be seen to be capable of dealing with it. As the English Court of Appeal held in Terry v Hoyer (UK) Ltd:
There is conduct which no court or tribunal, with its necessary concern for the proper administration of justice, could tolerate. Courts and tribunals must be concerned to do justice. They must, in doing that, have regard to the interests of litigants in general, to the proper use of court time and to the need to ensure respect for courts and tribunals in the community.
[15]Footnotes omitted. O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZCA 500, citing Terry v Hoyer (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 678 at [16].
Both of Mr O’Neill’s notices of appeal contain improper allegations and fail to raise any proper grounds of appeal. The proceedings in which he seeks to appeal are plainly abusive. A right-thinking person would regard the Court as exercising very poor control over its processes if Mr O’Neill were allowed to pursue them. The respondents should not have to respond to the claims and it would not be a proper use of the Court’s time to consider them further. It follows that the appeals in CA90/2025 and CA194/2025 must be struck out.
Result
The application for an extension of time to appeal in CA541/2024 is declined.
The appeals in CA90/2025 and CA194/2025 are struck out.
0
5
0