O’NEILL v WEBSTER [2023] NZHC 2570

O’NEILL v WEBSTER [2023] NZHC 2570

The proceeding was plainly an abuse of process because it lacked any justiciable connection between the applicant's extravagant allegations and the Commissioner’s decision, the statutory scheme contemplates HRRT remedies rather than judicial review for the subject matter, and the High Court Rules permit striking out plainly abusive proceedings under rr 5.35A/5.35B; accordingly the proceeding is struck out.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2570
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Joseph O'Neill; First Respondent: Michael Webster; Second Respondent: Riki Jamieson-Smyth
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Pre Service Screening by Duty Judge Under High Court Rules R 5.35 A/5.35 B; Proceeding Struck Out
Outcome
Proceeding struck out as a plain abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out, Referral Under R 5.35 A/5.35 B, Access to Courts, Privacy Act 2020
Administrative Law Privacy Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Abuse of Process Strike Out Referral Under R 5.35 A/5.35 B Access to Courts +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Joseph O'Neill

Applicant

Michael Webster

First Respondent

Riki Jamieson-Smyth

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Pre Service Screening by Duty Judge Under High Court Rules R 5.35 A/5.35 B; Proceeding Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process under rr 5.35A and 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016
  2. 2 Whether there is any justiciable challenge to the Privacy Commissioner's decision not to further investigate
  3. 3 Whether the statutory route to the Human Rights Review Tribunal displaced judicial review in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was plainly an abuse of process because it lacked any justiciable connection between the applicant's extravagant allegations and the Commissioner’s decision, the statutory scheme contemplates HRRT remedies rather than judicial review for the subject matter, and the High Court Rules permit striking out plainly abusive proceedings under rr 5.35A/5.35B; accordingly the proceeding is struck out.

Court Disposition

Proceeding struck out as a plain abuse of process

Orders

  • Proceeding struck out pursuant to High Court Rules 2016 rr 5.35A and 5.35B
  • Registrar directed to provide a copy of the decision to the respondents pursuant to r 5.35B(4)