Siemer v Auckland High Court

[2021] NZSC 120

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

 SC 68/2021
 [2021] NZSC 120

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:	20 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B         The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

1. Mr Siemer filed judicial review proceedings seeking an order in the nature of mandamus against a Judge of the Auckland High Court.  The proceedings were struck out under rr 5.35A–C of the High Court Rules 2016. 

2. Mr Siemer then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal along with an application to dispense with the requirement to lodge security for costs.  The Deputy Registrar declined to waive the security for costs requirement.  Mr Siemer then sought a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision, which was dismissed.[1]  This was on the basis that the proceedings could be viewed as “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process of the Court”.[2] 

   [1]Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZCA 194 (Brown J).

   [2]At [18].

3. Mr Siemer now seeks leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision which upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to waive security for costs.  He argues that his proposed appeal raises access to justice issues and that the fact that the proceedings were struck out without giving notice to or hearing from the applicant means that this Court’s decision in Reekie v Attorney-General needs to be reconsidered.[3]

Our assessment

[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.

1. Nothing raised by Mr Siemer satisfies the criteria in s 74(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.  Reekie v Attorney-General is a recent decision of this Court and there is no reason to reconsider it.  That decision was applied in this case and therefore the proposed appeal does not raise a matter of general or public importance and relates only to the particular circumstances of this case.[4]  Nor is there a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice.[5] 

Result

[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a).

[5]Section 74(2)(b).  For the threshold required for a miscarriage of justice in civil cases, see Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369 at [5].

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

2. The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents