O'Neill v The Privacy Commissioner - [2024] NZSC 162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 69/2024
[2024] NZSC 162

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Applicant
AND	THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

SC 70/2024
BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Applicant
AND	REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J M Hayward for Respondent in SC 69/2024 No appearance for Respondent in SC 70/2024
Judgment:	28 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr O’Neill applies for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal striking out two appeals.[1]

Background

High Court judgments

[1]O’Neill v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2024] NZCA 272 (French and Courtney JJ) [CA judgment].

On 14 September 2023, the High Court (Walker J) struck out two separate applications for judicial review brought by Mr O’Neill, on the ground that the proceedings were abuses of the court process.
The first proceeding was brought against the Privacy Commissioner and was described by the High Court Judge as follows:[2]
[7] I discern, although not without difficulty, that the genesis of this intended judicial review is some form of communication which Mr O’Neill contends took place between judges of the Court of Appeal and/or Supreme Court and the Solicitor-General. He pleads that this was an attempted incitement to bring proceedings against him.
[8] Mr O’Neill requested a copy of these communications from the Office of the Solicitor-General under the Privacy Act 2020. He pleads that his request was declined on the grounds of “client privilege”. Mr O’Neill complained to the Privacy Commissioner. The core complaint as pleaded is that the second respondent [the Manager, Investigations and Dispute Resolution] and not the Privacy Commissioner responded. However, Mr O’Neill also challenges the decision not to proceed with his complaint.
[2]O’Neill v Webster [2023] NZHC 2570 (Walker J).
The Judge “looked beyond the language and extravagant allegations” but could find no “semblance of a permissible or justiciable claim”. The claim was struck out on the basis that it was “transparently a vehicle for Mr O’Neill’s persistent attacks on the judicial system and judges”. The Judge concluded:[3]
The purported “evidence” which Mr O’Neill attaches to the application, far from supporting any ground for review, actively tells against it. The unconnected regurgitation of complaints against the judiciary have no relationship to the matters which Mr O’Neill purports to challenge, much of which goes well beyond anything the Court can address. Moreover, the statutory scheme anticipates appeals to the [Human Rights Review Tribunal] rather than judicial review.
[3]At [16].
The second proceeding was brought against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and described by the Judge in the following terms:[4]
[5] The genesis of this application appears to be that Registry officers at the Supreme Court did not accept a leave application presented by Mr O’Neill for filing because it did not conform with the Supreme Court…

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 The Privacy Commissioner 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: [2024] NZSC 162
Decision Date: 28 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Mr. Christopher Joseph O’Neill applied for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to strike out two appeals he had filed. The first appeal was against the Privacy Commissioner, and the second against the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Both appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal as abuses of the court process. The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the Court of Appeal's decision to strike out the appeals was correct, and if granting leave to appeal would be in the interests of justice. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly identified that Mr. O’Neill's appeals were abuses of process, as they involved unfounded allegations against the High Court Judge and lacked any justiciable claims. The Court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant Mr. O’Neill leave to appeal, as nothing in his application suggested the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs since the respondents did not file substantive submissions.

Orders