A. No civil proceeding shall, without leave of this Honourable Court, be instituted by Vincent Ross Siemer himself and/or by his agent in any court; and

B. None of the civil proceedings so far instituted by Vincent Ross Siemer in any court shall be continued by him and/or his agent without such leave.

[2] Section 88B relevantly provides:

88B Restriction on institution of vexatious actions

(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney-General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior Court, and whether against the same person or against different persons, the Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that no civil proceeding or no civil proceeding against any particular person or persons shall without the leave of the High Court or a Judge thereof be instituted by him in any Court and that any civil proceeding instituted by him in any Court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without such leave.

…

Summary of parties’ cases

The Attorney-General’s case

[3] The Attorney-General’s case is that from 2003 through to the present time Mr Siemer has conducted a campaign of litigation almost entirely derived from a dispute that arose in 2000. The dispute is between Mr Siemer and a receiver who was appointed to a company in which Mr Siemer and his wife had made an investment.

[4] The litigation has grown almost exponentially and on a scale not previously seen in New Zealand to include claims against the receiver and his company, other lawyers, the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General, judges who heard and determined the cases brought by Mr Siemer or by the receiver against Mr Siemer, and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

[5] The principal, but not the sole, reason why those proceedings are said to be vexatious is that Mr Siemer has used them to challenge the outcome of previous court cases in which he has been unsuccessful.

[6] The second amended statement of claim refers to 19 distinct legal proceedings instituted by Mr Siemer. In reliance on the principles set out in Brogden v Attorney-General1 the Attorney-General alleges that those 19 proceedings constitute vexatious proceedings.2

[7] The Attorney-General’s evidence comprised court documents from each of the proceedings which were contended to be vexatious: the pleadings,…

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 [2014] NZHC 859
Case: [2014] NZHC 859
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the Attorney-General applied for orders under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 against Vincent Ross Siemer, prohibiting him from instituting or continuing any civil proceedings without leave of the Court. The application was based on the contention that Mr Siemer had persistently instituted vexatious proceedings. Mr Siemer resisted the application on a number of grounds, including that the application should not be brought by the Attorney-General and that the evidence relied upon by the Attorney-General was deficient. The Court rejected all of Mr Siemer’s objections. The Court found that Mr Siemer had instituted vexatious proceedings on 15 out of the 19 occasions identified by the Attorney-General. The Court made an order prohibiting Mr Siemer from instituting or continuing any civil proceedings without leave of the Court against the parties involved in the litigation with Mr Stiassny, Ferrier Hodgson, Mr Robert Fardell, and Paragon Oil Systems Ltd, and prohibiting him from instituting or continuing any proceedings relating to that dispute. The Court considered that the appropriate outcome was to restrict the bringing of proceedings arising from this dispute (directly or indirectly) without leave. The Court also recommended consideration be given to amending s 88B in the same manner as in Canada and Australia so as to extend its application to cases where the vexatious behaviour occurs only subsequent to the institution of the proceeding.

Orders