O'Neill v Registrar of the Supreme Court

[2023] NZCA 668

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA569/2023
 [2023] NZCA 668

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Appellant
AND	REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT Respondent

CA570/2023
BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Appellant
AND	PRIVACY COMMISSIONER First Respondent MANAGER INVESTIGATIONS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION – OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Second Respondent

Court:	Courtney J
Counsel:	Appellant in person No appearance for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	20 December 2023 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

The application for review of the Registry Officer’s decision is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. On 14 September 2023 Walker J delivered two judgments in which she struck out proceedings brought by Mr O’Neill against the Privacy Commissioner[1] and against a Registrar of the Supreme Court.[2]  Mr O’Neill filed notices of appeal against both decisions.  On 7 November 2023 Miller J directed that both appeals be considered under r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 as to whether they should be struck out as an abuse of process. 

   [1]O’Neill v Webster [2023] NZHC 2570.

   [2]O’Neill v Leaupepe [2023] NZHC 2574.

2. On 15 November 2023 Mr O’Neill filed an application to “stop the “criminal” interference in cases before this court laid by me at the hand of Miller J and others”.  A Registry Officer responded, advising Mr O’Neill that his application was declined on the ground that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to consider it.[3]  Mr O’Neill was advised of his right to review the Registry Officer’s decision.

   [3]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 5A(1)(b)(ii).

3. On 30 November 2023 Mr O’Neill sought a review of the Registry Officer’s decision.  The matter has been referred to me.

4. Under r 44A the Court has the power, on its own initiative, to make an order striking out an appeal if (among other grounds) the appeal is an abuse of process.  The only requirement is that the Court must give the appellant 10 working days prior notice of its intention to consider making an order under this rule.  While a decision made under r 44A may be the subject of challenge, that point has not yet been reached.  All that has happened is that Mr O’Neill has been given notice of the fact that consideration will be given to making a decision under r 44A.  Mr O’Neill does not have a right of review (or any other means of challenge) to Miller J’s decision to direct consideration of the appeal under r 44A.  As a result, the Court Registry Officer was correct to decline to accept Mr O’Neill’s application dated 15 November 2023.

5. The application for review of the Registry Officer’s decision is declined.