O'Neill v Ritchie - [2022] NZHC 1225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-293 [2022] NZHC 1225

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

ALAN RITCHIE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

C J O’Neill Applicant in person

Judgment:

30 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Strike out)

[1] These proposed judicial review proceedings have been referred to me as Duty Judge pursuant to r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016, which provides:
5.35A Registrar may refer plainly abusive proceeding to Judge before service

(1)This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.

(3)However, the Registrar may,—

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and

O’NEILL v RITCHIE [2022] NZHC 1225 [30 May 2022]

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) to serve the proceeding.

[2] The proceedings are dated 4 March 2022 and have only just been referred to me due to an administrative breakdown in the Registry. Applications under this rule should be dealt with more promptly.

[3] Under r 5.35B the Court has certain powers in relation to a proceedings so referred. It provides:
5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

(1)This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceeding under rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—

(a)the proceeding be struck out:

(b)the proceeding be stayed until further order:

(c)documents for service be kept by the court and not be served until the stay is lifted:

(d)no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order (for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).

…

[4] In Mathiesen v Slevin the Court explained that deciding whether to strike out a proceeding so referred involved determining the following questions:1
(a)Whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond; and

(b)Whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicants’ document to be regarded as a proper document.

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 Ritchie

Details

AGLC: O'Neill v Ritchie [2022] NZHC 1225
Case: [2022] NZHC 1225
Decision Date: 30 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of O'Neill v Ritchie revolves around an application for judicial review brought by Christopher Joseph O'Neill against Alan Ritchie, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. O'Neill seeks to challenge the Commissioner's dismissal of four complaints he had lodged against various judges. The Commissioner had dismissed the complaints as vexatious, a decision that O'Neill now contests. The nature of the judicial review application is to scrutinise the Commissioner's handling of O'Neill's grievances and to question the appropriateness of the dismissals.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the application for judicial review constituted an abuse of process, warranting its dismissal before any service on the respondent. This involved determining if it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents to require them to respond to the proceedings and whether the Court would be seen as exercising poor control over its processes by allowing such a document to proceed. Given the history of O'Neill's litigation, which has been marked by persistent, repetitive attacks on the judicial system, often in an abusive manner, the Court had to consider if the present application was a continuation of this pattern.

Cooke J concluded that the proceedings were indeed an abuse of process. The Court found that there was no potential merit in O'Neill's claims, as they primarily reflected a general dissatisfaction with the judicial system and lacked substantive legal basis. Additionally, the Court highlighted the circular nature of the complaint, as one of the dismissed complaints pertained to a prior judicial review decision that was itself the subject of O'Neill's challenge. The Court determined that it would be unfair to expect the respondent to respond to such proceedings and that allowing them to continue would not reflect appropriate control of judicial processes. Consequently, the Court struck out the proceedings.

As a result of the Court's decision, the judicial review application was dismissed, and the proceedings were struck out. The Court also directed the Registrar to inform the Judicial Conduct Commissioner of this decision and noted that O'Neill had the right to appeal the ruling.

Orders