O'Neill v New Zealand Law Society

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 118/2022
[2023] NZSC 14

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY First Respondent B A GALLOWAY, R MAIDMENT AND J PILKINGTON Second Respondents

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person R S May and S B McCusker for First Respondent
Judgment:	3 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1] In that decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court to strike out the applicant’s proceeding in that Court against the respondents.[2]
[1]O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZCA 500 (Miller, Brewer and Moore JJ) [CA judgment].
[2]O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society [2021] NZHC 607 (Cooke J).
The High Court proceeding was struck out because of the abusive manner in which it was being conducted. The nature of the abusive conduct of the proceedings is set out in the Court of Appeal judgment, and we will not repeat it here.[3] The applicant also conducted his appeal to the Court of Appeal in a similarly abusive manner.[4]
[3]CA judgment, above n 1, at [7].
[4]At [9].
The applicant wishes to argue that his right to pursue his claim against the New Zealand Law Society should not have been taken from him. Although not specifically articulated, this appears to engage the miscarriage of justice ground.[5]
[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(b).
We are not persuaded that there is any appearance of a miscarriage in the present case. Nor do we consider that any matter of public importance arises.[6] The reason for the strike‑out depended entirely on the unusual facts of the case.
[6]Section 74(2)(a).
The criteria for the grant of leave to appeal are not met. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.
As the respondents abided the Court’s decision on leave and were not therefore called upon to file submissions, we make no order as to costs.
The Court of Appeal directed that the Registrar of that Court refer a copy of its judgment to the Solicitor‑General for consideration of such further steps as she might consider appropriate, having regard to s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.[7] We direct the Registrar of this Court to do the same.
[7]CA judgment, above n 1, at [28].

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application from Christopher Joseph O'Neill for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his appeal against the High Court's decision to strike out his proceeding against the New Zealand Law Society and three individuals. The High Court had ordered the proceedings to be struck out due to the abusive conduct exhibited by the applicant, a matter that was similarly observed in his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that his right to pursue his claim should not have been obstructed and implied a miscarriage of justice, although this was not explicitly stated.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the applicant's appeal constituted a miscarriage of justice or a matter of public importance, and if the criteria for granting leave to appeal were met. The Supreme Court found that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice in the case, as the decision to strike out the proceedings was based on the unique facts of the case involving the applicant's conduct. Furthermore, the Court did not consider the matter to be of public importance. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs since the respondents did not file submissions.

The Court's reasoning was based on the premise that the reason for striking out the proceedings was entirely dependent on the applicant's conduct and not on the merits of his case. The Supreme Court did not find the criteria for granting leave to appeal to be met, and thus dismissed the application. In line with the Court of Appeal's direction, the Supreme Court directed its Registrar to refer a copy of the judgment to the Solicitor-General for further consideration of appropriate steps under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established