Siemer v Brown - [2015] NZSC 157

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 76/2015
[2015] NZSC 157

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND JANE DINSDALE SIEMER
Applicants

AND

KEVIN STANLEY BROWN
First Respondent

M PALMA
Second Respondent

A LOVELOCK
Third Respondent

JANE THEW
Fourth Respondent

REECE SIRL
Fifth Respondent

Continued next page …

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person A M Powell for the First to Fourteenth Respondents V Casey for the Fifteenth Respondent
Judgment:	28 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BCosts of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).

____________________________________________________________________

JULIE FOSTER
Sixth Respondent
JOHN MILLER
Seventh Respondent
DAVID THOMAS
Eighth Respondent
BRETT OTTO
Ninth Respondent
TREVOR FRANKLIN
Tenth Respondent
JOHN TAYLOR
Eleventh Respondent
JUERGEN ARNDT
Twelfth Respondent
KERWIN STEWART
Thirteenth Respondent
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Fourteenth Respondent
B J REID
Fifteenth Respondent

REASONS

Background

Mr and Mrs Siemer (the applicants) are the appellants in an appeal to the Court of Appeal filed on 26 January 2015.[1]
[1]The decision appealed against is: Siemer v Brown [2014] NZHC 3175 (Toogood J).
The applicants seek leave to appeal against a decision of Wild J.[2] In that decision, Wild J dealt with three procedural applications relating to the appeal:
(a)the first application related to an extension of time to file the case on appeal. Wild J granted an extension of time;
(b)the second application was for recall of Wild J’s judgment dated 16 March 2015 upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[3] The recall application was on the basis that the Registrar’s decision should have been reviewed by a panel of three judges, as in Houghton v Saunders,[4] rather than by a single judge. The application was dismissed; and
(c)the third application was an application for review of the Registrar’s decision (dated 18 May 2015) refusing to accept for filing an application for review of Wild J’s decision dated 12 May 2015.[5] That decision was a review of the Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept for filing an application for review of Wild J’s earlier decision[6] upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs. Wild J held that, given his decision was made under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908, rather than s 61A(1), a three judge panel review of his decision was not permitted.[7]

Discussion

[2]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 276.

[3]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 69.

[4]Houghton v Saunders [2015] NZCA 141.

[5]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 161.

[6]Siemer v Brown, above n 3.

[7]Siemer v Brown, above 2, at [9]–[10].

As this Court said in Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, citing Reekie v Attorney-General,[8] “the general rule under s 61A(2) is plain: it is allows for a three judge bench to review decisions made under s 61A(1) but not under s 61A(3)”.[9]
[8]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Siemer v Brown

Details

AGLC: Siemer v Brown [2015] NZSC 157
Case: [2015] NZSC 157
Decision Date: 28 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to decide an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal, which itself concerned a number of procedural applications relating to an ongoing appeal. The applicants, Mr and Mrs Siemer, sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a three-judge panel review of the earlier decision of Wild J. The respondents were various individuals and entities who had been involved in the earlier proceedings.

The central legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in refusing to grant a three-judge panel review of Wild J's decision, as the applicants contended. The applicants argued that the refusal was inconsistent with the approach taken in Houghton v Saunders, where a three-judge panel review had been granted in a similar situation. The court needed to determine whether this was a case of general importance that warranted further judicial review, or whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and should stand.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the principles governing such jurisdictional issues, as established by the Supreme Court itself in Reekie v Attorney-General. The Court held that there was no error in the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a three-judge panel review, and that the applicants' arguments had been previously and repeatedly rejected by the Court. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicants to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

Orders