O'Neill v Registrar of the Supreme Court

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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of O'Neill v Registrar of the Supreme Court involved Christopher Joseph O'Neill as the appellant and the Registrar of the Supreme Court as the respondent. The case also included the Privacy Commissioner and the Manager Investigations and Dispute Resolution from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as additional respondents. Mr O'Neill appealed two decisions by Walker J, who had struck out his proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner and the Registrar. Miller J directed that both appeals be considered under Rule 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to determine if they should be dismissed as an abuse of process. Mr O'Neill filed an application to halt what he perceived as "criminal" interference in his cases, but a Registry Officer declined his application, stating the court lacked jurisdiction. Mr O'Neill subsequently sought a review of this decision. Courtney J dismissed the application for review, confirming that the Registry Officer's decision was correct. The court held that under Rule 44A, the Court of Appeal has the authority to strike out an appeal if it is an abuse of process, and that Mr O'Neill did not have a right to challenge the decision to consider the appeal under Rule 44A.

The primary legal issues addressed in this case revolved around the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to review a Registry Officer's decision declining an application by Mr O'Neill. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Mr O'Neill had a right to challenge the decision of the Registry Officer to decline his application. Additionally, the court examined whether the application for review itself constituted an abuse of process. Rule 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 empowers the court to dismiss an appeal on the grounds of abuse of process, but it also stipulates that the appellant must be given 10 working days' notice before such a decision is made. Courtney J noted that the decision to consider the appeal under Rule 44A was not subject to challenge at that stage, and thus, the Registry Officer's refusal to review the application was appropriate. The court concluded that the application for review was correctly declined and did not constitute an abuse of process.

In delivering the judgment, Courtney J emphasized that the Court of Appeal's power to strike out an appeal under Rule 44A is significant and operates independently of any right of review by the appellant. The court clarified that while a decision made under Rule 44A can eventually be challenged, the stage at which Mr O'Neill sought review did not allow for such a challenge. Courtney J further noted that the Registry Officer's decision to decline the application for review was in accordance with the rules and the court's procedures. The court's reasoning was grounded in the procedural rules and the need to maintain the integrity of the appellate process. The dismissal of the application for review was based on the absence of a right to challenge the Registry Officer's decision at that particular juncture.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for review of the Registry Officer’s decision was declined, and no further appeal or review was permitted on the matter. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the limitations on challenging certain decisions within the appellate process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established