O'Neill v Mt Roskill Local Doctors - [2025] NZHC 1960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1123

[2025] NZHC 1960

UNDER
the Constitution of New Zealand

the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

MT ROSKILL LOCAL DOCTORS

First respondent

THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER, COMPLAINTS ADMINISTRATOR, TEAM LEADER

Second respondents

Judicial review list: 16 July 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in person

IHV Reuvecamp for first respondent
A M Coventry and E H Callister-Baker for Health and Disability Commissioner

Date of judgment:

16 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 July 2025 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Vida Law, Wellington
Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, Auckland

Copy to:
Applicant

O’NEILL v MT ROSKILL LOCAL DOCTORS [2025] NZHC 1960 [16 July 2025]

[1] Mr O’Neill’s 21 April 2025 statement of claim seeks judicial review of unspecified “various decisions and actions of the respondents which [affect his] access to justice, and [his] health and longevity”, in respect of which he proposes this Court “rules” on if the respondents’ “processes” are correct or putting his or others’ lives “at risk”.

[2] My 18 June 2025 minute, noting the serious inadequacies of Mr O’Neill’s pleaded claim for judicial review, directed he either discontinue the proceeding or file and serve an amended statement of claim by 11 July 2025. He has done neither, but seeks instead my recusal while defending the contended adequacy of his original pleading. The respondents seek reference of the proceeding under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 to address the proceeding’s contended abuse of the process of the court.

Recusal

[3] Mr O’Neill claims my recusal on multiple grounds of indeterminate relevance, such as my being “party” to the first respondent’s counsel’s appearance, my reference to his pleading “on its face”, my refusal “to rule on [the constitution’s] existence”, and my 18 June 2025 directions in the face of “no defence” and as an “attempt … to frighten [him] off”. He says my focus on the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 to disregard the constitution of New Zealand including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and my 18 June 2025 minute not being received by him until 30 June 2025 meaning he could not by equivalent return of post meet my 11 July 2025 timetable, also warrant my recusal.

[4] Resolution of legal disputes by impartial and independent judges is “an essential underpinning” of democratic society.1 Those charged with criminal offences have “the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court”;2 the right to apply for judicial review engages no lesser consideration.3 Not only must

1 Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2007] NZCA 334, [2007] 3 NZLR 495 at [32], endorsed by Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment…

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 Mt Roskill Local Doctors 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 1960
Decision Date: 16 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of O'Neill v Mt Roskill Local Doctors, decided on 16 July 2025, involved an application for judicial review by Mr. Christopher Joseph O’Neill against Mt Roskill Local Doctors and the Health and Disability Commissioner. Mr. O'Neill sought a ruling on whether the respondents' processes were correct or putting his or others' lives at risk, citing various decisions and actions that allegedly affected his access to justice and health. The primary legal issues were whether the judge should recuse themselves and whether the proceeding constituted an abuse of process. The recusal application was based on several grounds, including the judge's alleged bias and procedural timing issues. The court assessed these claims against the established guidelines for judicial recusal, ultimately concluding that there was no reasonable apprehension of partiality.

Regarding the abuse of process, the court found that Mr. O'Neill's statement of claim was deficient in several critical respects. It failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements for a claim of judicial review, including identifying specific statutory powers exercised, the actions in question, and the grounds for claiming unfairness or unreasonableness. The court found the abuse to be clear beyond doubt, leading to the decision to strike out the pleading and dismiss the proceeding. The judge concluded that the proceeding was an improper use of the court's machinery and would cause unnecessary prejudice and delay if allowed to continue.

Orders