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:
Elias CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:
V R Siemer in person A M Powell and E J Devine for First to Fourteenth Respondents V E Casey for Fifteenth Respondent
Judgment:
14 July 2015
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
BThe applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
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
The applicants seek leave to appeal against a decision of Wild J.[1] In that decision, Wild J dealt with an application by the applicants to review a decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to accept for filing an application for a review by a panel of three Court of Appeal judges[2] of a decision made by Wild J upholding the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
In Siemer v Stiassny, this Court made it clear that there was no right of review by a panel of three Court of Appeal Judges of a decision by a single Judge dealing with an application for review of a decision by the Registrar under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908.[4] The Court said:[5]
The power for a single judge to review the decision of the Registrar [of the Court of Appeal] arises under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908. The Court of Appeal’s powers under s 61A(2) to review decisions made by a single judge of that Court are expressly limited to the review of interlocutory and incidental orders made by a single judge in chambers pursuant to s 61A(1). There is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).
The applicants’ attempt to file an application for review in circumstances where this Court had clearly ruled no right of review existed made it inevitable that the Registrar…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Siemer v Brown [2015] NZSC 102
Case
[2015] NZSC 102
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer sought leave to appeal against a decision of Wild J. The applicants sought to appeal against Wild J's dismissal of their application for review of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal's decision to refuse to accept for filing an application for review by a panel of three Court of Appeal judges of a decision made by Wild J upholding the Registrar's decision to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Court had to decide whether the applicants had made out a case for leave to appeal and whether the application was vexatious.
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that the applicants had sought to relitigate the same issue in a number of applications which had been dismissed as manifestly without merit. The Court also noted that the applicants' argument that Wild J had a conflict of interest was without merit. The Court found that the applicants' application was vexatious as it was the third application for leave to appeal in relation to the present litigation. The Court also found that the applicants' argument that Wild J's decision was in conflict with the Court of Appeal's decision in Houghton v Saunders was also without merit.
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,500 to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) and to the fifteenth respondent.