Meritless matter can’t be pursued without contributing to cost of administering justice: courts
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has denied an application for leave to appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction because the applicant should first seek leave from the High Court before requesting leave from the appeal court.
The case was O'Neill v MacPherson [2026] NZCA 420. According to Justice McQueen’s analysis of the claim, the applicant was alleging:
According to the judge, the applicant was asserting that the Privacy Commission:
Before the High Court, the applicant sought to apply for a judicial review and a fee waiver. The deputy registrar rejected the application for filing and refused to exercise the discretion to waive the fee.
On review, Justice McQueen of the High Court agreed with the deputy registrar. The judge found the applicant’s proposed judicial review application frivolous, vexatious, and wholly devoid of merit.
Citing the common law doctrine of res judicata, the judge said the applicant was re-litigating matters already concluded and raising allegations already considered in prior proceedings, which courts had struck out for an abuse of process and the lack of a valid cause of action.
According to Justice McQueen, requiring the applicant to pay the filing fee would align with the fees regulations’ legitimate purposes, including promoting access to justice.
Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant applied for leave to appeal.
Reiterating his grievances, the applicant also asserted a conflict of interest because the mail involved complaints about a former Court of Appeal president and a High Court judge, as well as made various claims regarding the appeal court’s registry staff.
Citing s 56(5) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.
Even assuming that there was jurisdiction, the appeal court would have dismissed the appeal. The appeal court held that Justice McQueen made a correct decision without errors.
The appeal court confirmed that the applicant could not pursue a meritless proceeding without contributing to the cost of the administration of justice.
The appeal court noted that it considered this matter before the High Court struck out another proceeding commenced by the applicant under s 164B of the Senior Courts Act.
According to the appeal court, under s 164C of the Senior Courts Act, the recent High Court judgment automatically restrained the applicant from continuing any civil proceeding before the appeal court without first securing leave from the High Court.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.
On 27 August 2026, the appeal court denied an employer leave to appeal against an Employment Court decision granting interim reinstatement until the Employment Relations Authority’s substantive investigation of a personal grievance raised by a summarily dismissed employee.
On 21 August 2026, the appeal court issued leave to bring a second appeal against a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol upon finding a reasonably arguable error in the High Court of New Zealand’s decision that might constitute a miscarriage of justice.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
