[Its-Spam-Bypass]Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
[2021] NZSC 3
•11 February 2021
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI |
| SC 101/2020 [2021] NZSC 3 |
| BETWEEN | VINCENT ROSS SIEMER |
| AND | DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| Court: | Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 11 February 2021 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 November 2020 (Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135) is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
The applicant has applied for the recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 November 2020, in which his application for review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar was dismissed and his application for directions was also dismissed.[1]
[1]Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135.
The position in relation to recall of a judgment was summarised by this Court in Craig v Williams as follows:[2]
The case law has … identified three categories of case in which a judgment may be recalled. These are an amendment after the hearing to relevant legislation or a new judicial decision of “high authority”, where counsel has failed to draw the Court’s attention to a relevant legislative provision or decision and “where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled”.[3]
[2]Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].
[3]Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash(No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
Neither of the first two of the above grounds applies, so the present application appears to be based on the third.
Nothing in the application or the affidavit filed with it discloses any reason that justice requires the judgment to be recalled, let alone a “very special reason”. While the applicant makes it clear that he disagrees with a number of aspects of the decision, there is nothing in the material the applicant has put before the Court that requires reconsideration of the decision. The Court does not therefore intend to engage with the arguments the applicant has put forward.
The application for recall is dismissed.
2
0