Siemer

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA232/2020
[2020] NZCA 571

RE	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant

Court:	Miller, Brown and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 November 2020 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Recall)

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment in Re: Siemer [2020] NZCA 393 is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

On 29 April 2020 Mr Siemer filed an appeal against a minute of Palmer J dated 28 February 2020 in which the Judge chose not to proceed further with consideration of the possibility of making an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 in respect of Mr Siemer.
In a judgment delivered on 4 September 2020 we made an order striking out the appeal because the minute to which the appeal was directed did not determine any issue against Mr Siemer.[1] Hence there was no judgment decree or order[2] susceptible to appeal by him.
[1]Re: Siemer [2020] NZCA 393.
[2]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56(1)(a).
Mr Siemer has filed an application for recall of our judgment focusing on paragraph 21 which read:
[21] However the minute records that Palmer J elected not to pursue the s 166 route. The minute itself does not contain any decision or determination. Hence the observation in the minute of Cooper J that there is no live legal issue concerning any order made against Mr Siemer.
Mr Siemer challenges the accuracy of that paragraph, contending that it is a clear case of misstatement of fact and that correction is necessary to avoid appearance of judicial recklessness or impropriety.
There is no error in paragraph [21]. The essence of that paragraph and of the judgment as a whole is that in the minute of 28 February 2020 there was no determination by the High Court against Mr Siemer’s interests which gives rise to a right of appeal by him.
In any event the alleged error in our judgment is not a matter giving rise to the exercise of the recall jurisdiction.[3] If Mr Siemer wishes to challenge our judgment, then the appropriate course is for him to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application for recall of its previous judgment concerning Vincent Ross Siemer. Siemer filed an appeal against a minute from Palmer J dated 28 February 2020, where Palmer J chose not to proceed with consideration of making an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 in relation to Siemer. The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal, determining that the minute did not determine any issue against Siemer, and therefore did not provide a judgment, decree, or order that Siemer could appeal. Siemer subsequently applied for recall of the Court of Appeal's judgment, specifically challenging the accuracy of a paragraph in the judgment that stated there was no decision or determination in the minute of 28 February 2020. Siemer contended that the paragraph was a clear misstatement of fact and sought correction to avoid the appearance of judicial recklessness or impropriety.

The Court of Appeal considered Siemer's application and found no error in the judgment. The Court noted that the judgment accurately stated that there was no determination by the High Court against Siemer's interests in the minute of 28 February 2020. The Court further held that the alleged error in the judgment was not a matter giving rise to the exercise of the recall jurisdiction. If Siemer wished to challenge the judgment, the appropriate course would be to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal declined Siemer's application for recall of the judgment. The Court of Appeal found no error in the judgment and noted that if Siemer wished to challenge the judgment, he should apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established