Siemer v Brown

[2015] NZSC 62

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 31/2015
[2015] NZSC 62

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 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:	15 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The 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

B J REID

Fifteenth Respondent

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision of Toogood J in the High Court in which Toogood J dismissed the applicants’ claims against the respondents relating to a search of the applicants’ home.[1]  The subject of the proposed appeal is the refusal by Toogood J to recuse himself from the proceeding.  An application for leave to appeal directly to this Court against the decision was dismissed.[2]  An application for recall was also dismissed.[3]

   [1]Siemer v Brown [2014] NZHC 3175.

   [2]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZSC 41.

   [3]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZSC 50.

2. The applicants applied for dispensation from the requirement to pay security for costs and their application was declined by the Registrar.  The Registrar’s decision was the subject of an unsuccessful review to a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Wild J.[4]  The applicants now seek leave to appeal against the decision of Wild J. 

   [4]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 69 (Wild J).

3. The application for review failed because Wild J determined that the proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal was not an appeal which a solvent appellant would wish to pursue.[5]  That was an orthodox application of the criteria set out in this Court’s decision in Reekie v Attorney-General. [6] 

   [5]At [11].

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

4. The applicants argue that the requirement to pay security for costs is a barrier to access to the Court of Appeal.  This Court has already rejected that argument in Siemer v Brown.[7]   As stated in that judgment, if there were a proper basis for dispensation from that requirement, applying the Reekie test, dispensation would be allowed. 

   [7]Siemer v Brown, above n 2, at [6].

5. There is nothing in the material submitted by the applicants that indicates any error on the part of Wild J.  There is no appearance of any miscarriage of justice.

6. In those circumstances the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

7. The 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.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents