Legal Research
Cases
Attorney-General v Siemer

Attorney-General v Siemer

Case [2022] NZHC 917 5 May 2022

Jurisdiction

Standing

Discovery & Disclosure

Res Judicata

Abuse of Process

Consolidation

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Procedural Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

REDACTED VERSION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2021-404-1955

[2022] NZHC 917

BETWEEN
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Plaintiff

AND

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER

Defendant

Hearing: 17 March 2022

Appearances:

S Jerebine for Plaintiff Mr Siemer in Person

Judgment:

5 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 May 2022 at 3 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington

And to:
The Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v SIEMER [2022] NZHC 917 [5 May 2022]

[1] Vincent Siemer was subject to an indefinite vexatious litigant order under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908. However, the enactment of the Senior Courts Act 2016 caused that order to lapse, at the latest, on 28 February 2022.1 The Attorney-General has brought an originating application, in reliance on s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, for a general civil restraint order preventing Mr Siemer from commencing or continuing any civil proceedings in every senior court, inferior court or tribunal for a period of five years. Mr Siemer opposes this application.

[2] The matters for determination before me are three interlocutory applications made by Mr Siemer. Each is opposed by the Attorney-General. The applications are:

(a)to strike out of the civil restraint order application for abuse of process/duplication;

(b)for further and better particulars in the abovementioned pleadings of the Attorney-General; and

(c)objections to the Attorney-General producing judgments and other documents relating to Mr Siemer’s previous litigation in the courts as evidence to support the application for a general civil restraint order. Mr Siemer contends this is contrary to ss 50 and 130 of the Evidence Act 2006, inadmissible hearsay under s 17 or is irrelevant and prejudicial under ss 7 and 8.

[3] Mr Siemer is the applicant in the present hearing and the respondent in the substantive hearing. For clarity, I refer to parties by their names.

The substantive application for a s 166 order

[4] Because the form and process of the civil restraint order is in issue in relation to the interlocutory applications, I set the legislation out here for convenience:

1 There is no legal clarity on the exact effect of the savings provisions of the Senior Courts Act 2016 on the expiry of vexatious litigant orders under the Judicature Act 1908: see Rafiq v Whata [2019] NZHC 1193; Siemer v New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZHC 3075; and Siemer v Auckland High Court [2019] NZHC 3393. However, under all possible interpretations the order is now lapsed.

166 Judge may make order restricting commencement or continuation of proceeding

(1) A Judge of the High Court may make an order restricting a person from commencing or continuing a civil proceeding.

(2) The order may have—

(a) a limited effect (a limited order); or

(b) an extended effect (an extended order); or

(c) a general effect (a general order).

(3) A limited order restrains a party from…

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 Attorney-General v Siemer

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v Siemer [2022] NZHC 917
Case: [2022] NZHC 917
Decision Date: 5 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General v Siemer, the High Court of New Zealand was required to determine several interlocutory applications made by the defendant, Vincent Siemer, in response to an originating application brought by the Attorney-General for a general civil restraint order. The application sought a general civil restraint order under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, preventing Mr Siemer from commencing or continuing any civil proceedings in every senior court, inferior court or tribunal for a period of five years. The court had to decide whether the application for a general civil restraint order should be consolidated with an interlocutory application brought by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and whether certain documents relied on by the Attorney-General could be admitted as evidence.

The court found that consolidation of the two proceedings was appropriate, as it would result in more efficient use of court and judicial time and resources, and avoid inconsistent decisions. The court also ruled that some of the documents relied on by the Attorney-General were inadmissible as evidence, while others were admissible or their admissibility would need to be determined at a later date. The court concluded that the benefits of consolidation outweighed the prejudicial impact of the evidence that may be admitted by operation of the law of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The final orders of the court were as follows:

1. The originating application by the Attorney-General was to be consolidated with the interlocutory application by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and transferred to the Wellington Registry of the High Court.
2. The application for further and better particulars was adjourned.
3. Several pieces of evidence were ruled inadmissible, including reasons for decisions and judgments from various previous cases, as well as certain affidavits and letters.
4. Some pieces of evidence were ruled admissible, such as draft statements of claim and memoranda.
5. The admissibility of several other pieces of evidence was to be determined at a later date, including judgments from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
6. Costs were to lie where they fell, as Mr Siemer, being a self-represented litigant, was not entitled to an award of costs.

Orders