O'Neill v Webster - [2023] NZHC 2570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-000538

[2023] NZHC 2570

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

MICHAEL WEBSTER

First Respondent

RIKI JAMIESON-SMYTH

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

14 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 September 2023 at 3 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

O’NEILL v WEBSTER [2023] NZHC 2570 [14 September 2023]

[1] The applicant has tendered for filing in the Wellington Registry of the High Court an application for judicial review of the “actions and decisions of the named respondents”. The respondents are named as Michael Webster and Riki Jamieson-Smyth. They are respectively the Privacy Commissioner, and Manager, Investigations and Dispute Resolution of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

[2] The application has been referred to me as Duty Judge under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules). That rule 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.

[3] Proceedings referred to a Judge under r 5.35A are considered under r 5.35B which 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).

(3)Rule 7.43(3) does not apply. However, if a Judge makes an order on the Judge’s own initiative without giving the person who filed the proceeding an opportunity to be heard,…

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 Webster

Details

AGLC: O'Neill v Webster [2023] NZHC 2570
Case: [2023] NZHC 2570
Decision Date: 14 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of O'Neill v Webster, the applicant, Christopher Joseph O'Neill, sought judicial review in the Wellington Registry of the High Court against the decisions and actions of the Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster, and the Manager, Investigations and Dispute Resolution of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Riki Jamieson-Smyth. O'Neill's application for judicial review was referred to the High Court under Rule 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016, which allows for the referral of proceedings deemed plainly abusive to a Judge for consideration. The core of O'Neill's application was a complaint regarding the handling of his request under the Privacy Act 2020, specifically challenging the decision not to further investigate his complaint about the denial of his request for documents from the Office of the Solicitor-General on grounds of "client privilege".

The legal issues before the court centred on whether O'Neill's application for judicial review was an abuse of process, warranting its dismissal under Rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016. The court had to determine if O'Neill's application was transparently a vehicle for his persistent attacks on the judicial system and judges, rather than a legitimate request for judicial review. The court considered the nature of O'Neill's complaints, the statutory scheme for appeals from decisions of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and the appropriateness of judicial review as a remedy.

The court found that O'Neill's application did not present a permissible or justiciable claim. Instead, it was a vehicle for O'Neill's persistent attacks on the judicial system and judges, with the attached "evidence" actively telling against any ground for review. The court concluded that the statutory scheme anticipated appeals to the Human Rights Review Tribunal rather than judicial review, and O'Neill's complaints against the judiciary were unconnected and irrelevant to the matters he purported to challenge. Therefore, the court struck out the proceeding, directing the Registrar to provide a copy of the decision to the respondents and noting that O'Neill had a right of appeal against the decision.

Orders