Siemer v Attorney-General

[2013] NZCA 472

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA309/2013
[2013] NZCA 472

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Counsel:

Applicant in Person
P J Gunn for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

27 November 2013 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J
(Review of Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs)

AThe application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is dismissed.

BThe applicant is to pay the sum of $5,880 by way of security for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

1. Vincent Siemer appeals against a decision of Toogood J in the High Court striking out his claim against the Attorney-General for declaratory relief under s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the NZBORA) and declining his application for Toogood J to recuse himself due to his bias against Mr Siemer.[1] 

   [1]Siemer v Attorney-General [2013] NZHC 1111.

2. Mr Siemer has separately appealed against Toogood J’s refusal on 2 May 2013 to recuse himself from hearing the application.  Mr Siemer’s application to review the Registrar’s decision declining to waive security for costs was dismissed by this Court on 22 August 2013.[2]  His application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14 November 2013.[3]

Application to dispense with security for costs

[2]Siemer v Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 391.

[3]Siemer v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 116.

1. Mr Siemer’s appeal against the decision of Toogood J was accepted for filing on 21 May 2013.  Mr Siemer applied at the same time to the Registrar under r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules) to dispense with security for costs, set at $5880.

The Registrar’s decision

1. In a decision of 18 June 2013 the Registrar declined Mr Siemer’s application to dispense with security for costs.  She found that the circumstances of the appeal did not warrant dispensing with security for costs.  Her decision was as follows:

   As you will be aware from your previous applications, it must be in the interests of justice for security for costs to be waived and there must be exceptional circumstances to justify waiver.  You have stated you are deemed impecunious however impecuniosity alone does not mean that security for costs should be dispensed with. I do not believe that this case is one where there are exceptional circumstances, or where the case is of significant public interest that would justify the dispensation of security for costs.

   After also considering the Courts judgments in Fava v Zaghloul [2007] NZCA 498, and Vincent Ross Siemer v Chief Justice [2011] NZCA 183, the more recent decision of Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael RichardHeron andothers [2013] NZCA 202, it is my view this is not an appropriate case for waiver of security for costs.

   Security is necessary to protect the respondent in this case, in terms of any costs that could be awarded against you should this appeal be unsuccessful.

Decision

1. On 21 June 2013 Mr Siemer applied to review the Registrar’s decision under r 35(6) of the Rules.  I have personally considered the application to review the Registrar’s decision under r 7(2) of the Rules and s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908.

2. Mr Siemer has not demonstrated that the Registrar erred.  His appeal is without any apparent merit.  Mr Siemer contended in the High Court that his s 27 right to justice had been breached by the Judges of the Supreme Court as a result of proceedings before it and as the result of subsequent failures to correct that injustice.[4]  Toogood J was plainly correct to dismiss Mr Siemer’s application as a collateral challenge to the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions dismissing his appeal and rejecting his recall applications. 

   [4]Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 133, [2012] 1 NZLR 309 (William Young J disagreed that there was a right of appeal but expressly agreed with the majority that any appeal right Mr Siemer may have possessed in relation to the High Court’s orders for security ceased to exist under the operation of s 74(2) of the District Courts Act 1947 (at [59])).

3. Moreover, Mr Siemer’s appeal does not raise any important issues nor is there any issue of public interest arising.  Thus the Registrar was correct to refuse to dispense with the requirement to pay security for costs.

Result

1. Mr Siemer’s application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is dismissed.  Mr Siemer is to pay the sum of $5,880 by way of security for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent