Siemer v Auckland High Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 68/2021
[2021] NZSC 150

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

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person A M Powell and R M McMenamin for Respondents
Judgment:	8 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The second application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 20 September 2021 (Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 120) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The application

On 20 September 2021, this Court dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to waive security for costs.[1]
[1]Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 120 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ).
Mr Siemer’s application for the recall of that judgment was dismissed on 21 October 2021.[2]
[2]Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 141 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ).
Mr Siemer applies again for the recall of our judgment. Nothing raised provides any basis for the recall of our judgment.

Result

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 20 September 2021 (Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 120) is dismissed.
We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications for recall of the judgment of 20 September 2021. This includes any related applications.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer has applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for a second time to recall a judgment of the Court. The judgment dismissed Siemer's application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision of the Deputy Registrar to decline to waive security for costs. The Court dismissed Siemer’s first application for recall on 21 October 2021. Siemer seeks recall on the basis that the Court’s judgment was based on inadequate and incomplete information. The Court was of the view that the application provided no basis for the recall of its earlier judgment. The Court dismissed the application for recall and directed the Registrar not to accept any further applications for recall of the judgment of 20 September 2021. This includes any related applications.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the application for recall provided a sufficient basis for the Court to recall its judgment. Siemer submitted that the Court’s earlier judgment was based on inadequate and incomplete information. The Court considered Siemer’s arguments and was of the view that they did not provide a sufficient basis for the recall of the judgment. The Court noted that Siemer had not identified any new material facts or legal arguments that had not been previously considered by the Court. The Court found that Siemer had failed to demonstrate that there were any errors in the Court’s earlier judgment.

The Court dismissed Siemer’s application for recall of the judgment of 20 September 2021. The Court noted that Siemer had not provided any new material facts or legal arguments that had not been previously considered by the Court. The Court found that Siemer had failed to demonstrate that there were any errors in the Court’s earlier judgment. The Court directed the Registrar not to accept any further applications for recall of the judgment of 20 September 2021. This includes any related applications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established