Siemer v Attorney-General

In Siemer v Attorney-General, the dispute involved Mr Siemer challenging the jurisdiction of a High Court Judge to review another High Court Judge's decision. The case was heard by the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the lower court's decision was correct and if it complied with the principles of natural justice. Mr Siemer appealed against the decision of van Bohemen J, who had dismissed his application to recall a previous judgment and struck out his proceeding without a hearing. The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether van Bohemen J had the authority to review another High Court Judge's decision, and if his actions in denying Mr Siemer a hearing and striking out the proceeding complied with the principles of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal held that a High Court Judge does not have jurisdiction to review the judicial decisions of another High Court Judge. This principle was affirmed, and it was noted that Mr Siemer's application to recall the judgment was properly declined by van Bohemen J. However, the Court found that van Bohemen J's actions in striking out the proceeding without a hearing and without consulting the parties constituted a breach of natural justice. The Court emphasised the fundamental right of parties to a fair hearing and the need for justice to be seen to be done. The amendment to the draft judgment, adding the word "judicial," suggested that van Bohemen J may not have fully appreciated the distinction Mr Siemer was attempting to draw. This breach of natural justice, the Court found, was significant enough to warrant allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court for a hearing before another judge.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal allowed Mr Siemer's appeal and directed that the matter be remitted to the High Court for a hearing before another judge. Mr Siemer confirmed that he wished for the matter to be heard by the High Court, and the respondent's counsel accepted this as the appropriate course of action. The Court did not find it necessary to determine whether Downs J's decision was susceptible to judicial review, as the primary issue was the procedural fairness of van Bohemen J's actions.