Legal Research
Cases
O'Neill v Thomas

O'Neill v Thomas

Case [2024] NZHC 1538 12 June 2024

Judicial Review

Abuse of Process

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Constitutional Law

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-000331

[2024] NZHC 1538

UNDER
the Constitution of New Zealand

the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an Application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

SUSAN THOMAS

Chief High Court Judge Respondent

CIV-2024-485-000332

UNDER

the Constitution of New Zealand the New Zealand Bill of Rights

IN THE MATTER

of an Application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

UNA JAGOSE

Solicitor-General Respondent

CIV-2024-485-000333

UNDER

the Constitution of New Zealand
the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an Application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

MARY OLLIVIER

Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner Respondent

O’NEILL v THOMAS [2024] NZHC 1538 [12 June 2024]

CIV-2024-485-000334

UNDER

the Constitution of New Zealand
the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

IN THE MATTER

of an Application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

JUDITH COLLINS

Attorney-General First Respondent

GERRY BROWNLEE
Speaker
Second Respondent

HELEN WHITE

Member of Parliament Third Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

Applicant in person

Judgment:

12 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

[1] Mr O’Neill has filed four separate applications for judicial review that have been referred to me 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

(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]Once referred under r 5.35A, a Judge has the powers provided for in r 5.35B:

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…

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 Thomas

Details

AGLC: O'Neill v Thomas [2024] NZHC 1538
Case: [2024] NZHC 1538
Decision Date: 12 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christopher Joseph O'Neill has filed four separate applications for judicial review against various respondents, including a former Chief High Court Judge, the Solicitor-General, the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the Attorney-General, the Speaker of the House, and a Member of Parliament. The applications are considered to be an abuse of the judicial process due to their incoherent nature, lack of coherent factual narrative, and improper, scandalous, and unsubstantiated allegations. These proceedings are part of O'Neill's persistent and abusive attacks on the judicial system. The court has found that these proceedings are an abuse of the court's process and are struck out under rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules. The court has directed the Registrar to provide a copy of this decision to the respondents and has noted that O'Neill has a right to appeal the decision.

This case highlights the court's role in ensuring that its processes are not abused, particularly by litigants who have a history of making scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations. The court's decision to strike out these proceedings serves as a deterrent to such abuse and reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

Orders