Siemer

[2020] NZCA 571

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)

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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. 

5. 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.

6. 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).