Siemer v Brown

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 31/2015
[2015] NZSC 86

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:	William Young, Arnold and OʼRegan 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:	22 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for the recall of our judgment in Siemer & Siemer v Brown & Ors [2015] NZSC 62 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

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

The first named applicant seeks an order recalling our judgment of 15 May 2015 dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment by Wild J[1] refusing to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal by the applicant to the Court of Appeal against a refusal by Toogood J to recuse himself in litigation in the High Court in a claim by the applicants as plaintiffs against the respondents.[2]
[1]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 69.
[2]Siemer v Brown [2014] NZHC 3175.
The grounds advanced do not add anything of substance to the submissions filed in support of the leave judgment and do not warrant a recall of that judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer sought to appeal the decision of the New Zealand Supreme Court, which dismissed their application for leave to appeal. The case in question involved a claim by the applicants against the respondents in the High Court, where the applicants sought to appeal a decision by Toogood J, who refused to recuse himself. The applicants had previously sought to dispense with security for costs in relation to this appeal to the Court of Appeal, a request which Wild J had also dismissed. The applicants now sought to appeal the Supreme Court's decision dismissing their application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the grounds for recall advanced by the applicants warranted a reconsideration of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing their application for leave to appeal. The applicants needed to demonstrate that there was new evidence or a significant error in the previous judgment that justified a recall.

The court held that the grounds presented by the applicants did not provide any substantive new arguments or evidence that would warrant a recall of the earlier judgment. The court found that the grounds were essentially a reiteration of the submissions made in support of the leave judgment and did not address any new or significant issues that had not already been considered. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the application for the recall of the Supreme Court's judgment in Siemer & Siemer v Brown & Ors [2015] NZSC 62 was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established