O'Neill v Walsh

[2025] NZHC 956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2025-485-201

[2025] NZHC 956

UNDER

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

Judicial Review Act 2016 and natural justice

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

DAVID WALSH

First Respondent

CHRISTOPHER BISHOP

Second Respondent

NEW ZEALAND POST

Third Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Mr O’Neill self-represented
Judgment:	17 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1]        The Registrar has referred a proceeding filed by Christopher Joseph O’Neill to me (as Duty Judge), for consideration under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016.

[2]The proceeding comprises three documents labelled respectively as:

(a)notice of proceeding;

(b)statement of claim — application for judicial review; and

O’NEILL v DAVID WALSH [2025] NZHC 956 [17 April 2025]

(c)submissions.

[3]        Mr O’Neill’s statement of claim and notice of proceeding do not comply with formal requirements in the High Court Rules. For example, the statement of claim does not adequately show the nature of Mr O’Neill’s claim or inform the court or the parties as to his cause of action. Rather, it is framed as a series of questions, peppered with characteristic abuse and scandalous allegations, but without defining the nature of Mr O’Neill’s claim or the decision that he seeks to review.

[4]        From the 24-page handwritten document headed “Submissions”, it appears at its heart that Mr O’Neill’s proceeding relates to his concerns about the non-delivery or delayed delivery by New Zealand Post of his correspondence to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner between September 2024 and February 2025.

[5]        On this pretext, Mr O’Neill seeks to involve New Zealand Post and its Chief Executive, the Minister for State-Owned Enterprises in a broad ranging inquiry into a “perversion of justice” concerning Mr O’Neill’s complaints about various judges.1

[6]        Rule 5.35B gives a Judge jurisdiction to strike out or stay a proceeding before it has been served if the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court of Appeal has observed that given this rule contemplates a litigant being denied the fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding being halted before it is even served, the abuse must be clear beyond doubt from reading the claim.2 The strike out powers in r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases.

[7]        Having read the documents filed by Mr O’Neill, I am in no doubt that his proposed proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court. His documents lack any valid cause of action on which Mr O’Neill can seek relief. Mr O’Neill has

1      The Registry has advised me that Mr O’Neill has recently filed a separate “application for judicial review” making similar claims against the Privacy Commissioner and Deputy Privacy Commissioner, “the entirety of the Privacy Commission” [sic], “X person unknown”, and various Government Ministers, in proceeding number CIV-2025-485-182. I am also aware of another of Mr O’Neill’s proceeding under consideration by the Court which relates to his concerns about the Judicial Conduct Commissioner: CIV-2025-485-181.

2      Te Wakaminenga O Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63, [2023] NZAR 180 at [15].

not identified any exercise of statutory or other public power connected with the delay in delivery of his mail that could possibly be the subject of a judicial review proceeding.

[8]        It would be improper to require the respondents to respond to Mr O’Neill’s allegations through Court processes. The Court would be exercising poor control of its processes if it allowed the present proceeding to continue. Mr O’Neill’s proceeding is not capable of being amended to turn it into a valid claim against the respondents.

[9]Accordingly, I strike Mr O’Neill’s proceeding out under r 5.35B(3).

[10]Mr O’Neill has the right to appeal against this decision.

McHerron J