O'Neill v Maidment - [2025] NZCA 268

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA541/2024
[2025] NZCA 268

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Applicant
AND	REX MAIDMENT First Respondent JAN PILKINGTON Second Respondent

CA90/2025
BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Appellant
AND	PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

CA194/2025
BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Appellant
AND	HIGH COURT HEADS OF BENCH, CURRENT AND PAST First, Second and Third Respondent CHIEF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, PAST Fourth Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL, PAST Fifth Respondent MINISTER OF JUSTICE, PAST Sixth Respondent MINISTER OF POLICE, PAST Seventh Respondent COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PAST Eighth Respondent

Court:	Mallon and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	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.…

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.

Continue reading O'Neill v Maidment

Details

AGLC: O'Neill v Maidment [2025] NZCA 268
Case: [2025] NZCA 268
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Christopher Joseph O'Neill sought to appeal three decisions of the High Court, each of which had dismissed his applications for judicial review as an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal, comprising Mallon and Woolford JJ, considered whether these appeals should be struck out as an abuse of process. The appeals in question were against decisions made by the High Court regarding his applications for judicial review against various officials and entities. O'Neill sought an extension of time for one appeal and filed notices of appeal for the others, but the respondents did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found that O'Neill's appeals were not only baseless but also abusive of the judicial process. In relation to the first appeal (CA541/2024), the court declined the application for an extension of time to appeal as the appeal would be hopeless and an improper forum for O'Neill's baseless claims. For the second and third appeals (CA90/2025 and CA194/2025), the court held that these appeals should be struck out as they were plainly abusive, contained improper allegations, and failed to raise any proper grounds for appeal. The appeals were dismissed as they would not be a proper use of the Court's time and would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court concluded by declining the application for an extension of time and striking out the appeals in CA90/2025 and CA194/2025 as an abuse of process. This decision reinforces the principle that the Court must not permit abusive behaviour that undermines the proper administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system.

Orders