Siemer v Auckland High Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 136/2021
[2021] NZSC 173

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND HIGH COURT First Respondent MATTHEW SIMON RUSSELL PALMER Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person A M Powell and R M McMenamin for Respondents
Judgment:	6 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B Costs are reserved.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant issued proceedings in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to require the Court and Palmer J to issue a judgment as to whether an order should be made against him under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The application was struck out by Powell J as an abuse of process[1] and the applicant’s appeal against that judgment was struck out by the Court of Appeal on the same ground.[2] He now seeks leave to appeal.
[1]Siemer v Auckland High Court [2020] NZHC 3072.
[2]Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZCA 487 (French, Brown and Courtney JJ).
The background to the application was reviewed in the judgments of both Powell J and the Court of Appeal. Their conclusions that the proceedings and the appeal to the Court of Appeal were abuses of process is undoubtedly correct; this for the reasons they gave. The same is true of the present application for leave to appeal.
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. Costs were not addressed in the submissions and are therefore reserved.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer sought leave to appeal a decision from the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his appeal against a decision from the High Court to strike out his proceedings as an abuse of process. Siemer's original application in the High Court sought a writ of mandamus to require the Court and Palmer J to issue a judgment as to whether an order should be made against him under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Siemer's appeal on the same grounds as Powell J's original decision, namely, that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court was required to decide whether Siemer's application for leave to appeal should be allowed. The Court was also required to decide whether the costs of the proceedings should be awarded to either party. The Court found that Siemer's application for leave to appeal was without merit and was an abuse of process. The Court noted that the reasons for the earlier decisions were valid and that there was no basis for allowing an appeal. The Court found that the costs of the proceedings should be reserved, as they were not addressed in the submissions.

The Supreme Court dismissed Siemer's application for leave to appeal and reserved the costs of the proceedings. The Court found that Siemer's application was an abuse of process and that there was no valid basis for an appeal. The Court noted that the reasons for the earlier decisions were valid and that there was no merit in Siemer's application. The Court found that the costs of the proceedings should be reserved as they were not addressed in the submissions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established