Siemer v Auckland High Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 68/2021
[2021] NZSC 141

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:	21 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

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 of costs.[1]
[1]Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 120 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ).
Mr Siemer applies for recall of that judgment on the basis that the judgment does not adequately summarise his grounds for the proposed appeal. In effect, Mr Siemer wishes to argue that the Court should revisit its judgment.
A submission of this nature does not provide a basis for recall.[2]

Result

[2]See Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].

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

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, the applicant, sought recall of the Supreme Court’s decision dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to waive security of costs in a legal dispute involving Siemer and Matthew Simon Russell Palmer. The Auckland High Court was also a respondent in the proceedings. The Supreme Court, comprising Glazebrook, O’Regan, and Ellen France JJ, was tasked with determining whether to recall its earlier judgment.

The legal issues before the Court included whether Siemer's grounds for appeal were adequately summarised in the previous judgment and if there was a basis for recall as he argued for the Court to revisit its decision. The Court considered if Siemer's complaint about the adequacy of the summary of his grounds for appeal warranted a recall, and whether such a submission met the criteria for reconsideration under existing legal precedents.

The Court found that Siemer’s application for recall did not meet the criteria established in previous cases, such as Craig v Williams, for recall of a judgment. The Court concluded that Siemer’s argument essentially asked the Court to revisit its earlier judgment, which was not a valid ground for recall. The Court dismissed the application for recall, affirming the earlier judgment that Siemer's application for leave to appeal was properly dismissed.

The Court's final orders dismissed Siemer’s application for recall of the earlier judgment. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Siemer’s application for leave to appeal and confirmed that the grounds for the proposed appeal were adequately summarised in the previous judgment. The Court did not see fit to revisit its earlier decision, thereby finalising the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established