Siemer v Brown

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA31/2015
[2015] NZCA 161

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND JANE DINSDALE SIEMER Appellants
AND	KEVIN STANLEY BROWN & ORS Respondents

Counsel:

Appellants in person
A M Powell for Respondents

Judgment:

(On the papers)

12 May 2015 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF WILD J
[Review of Registrar’s decision]

The Registrar’s decision of 23 March refusing to accept for filing an application for review is upheld.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Pursuant to r 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, the appellants sought a review of a judgment I gave on 16 March 2015.[1] The appellants filed their application on 23 March.
[1]Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 69.
The same day the Registrar refused to accept that review application for filing and returned it to the appellants. The reason given was that review is only available of a decision made under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908. My decision was made under s 61A(3).
On 31 March the appellants sought review of the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept their review application.
The Registrar’s decision is correct, as at least the appellant Mr V R Siemer well knows: Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Ors [2013] NZSC 112, particularly at [3].
Accordingly, having reviewed the Registrar’s decision, I uphold it.
The appellants’ remedy is to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which I note they did on 31 March.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer sought to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal, initially rendered on 16 March 2015. Their application for review was filed on 23 March, but the Registrar refused to accept it for filing on the same day, citing that review is only permissible under specific sections of the Judicature Act 1908. The appellants subsequently sought review of the Registrar's decision on 31 March. The core legal issue revolved around the scope of review available under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and whether the appellants' application for review was properly filed. The Court of Appeal found that the Registrar's decision was correct, as it was in line with established jurisprudence that review is only available for decisions made under specific statutory provisions. The appellants were informed that their proper recourse was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal, in upholding the Registrar's decision, relied on previous case law, notably Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Ors [2013] NZSC 112. The Court determined that the appellants' application for review was incorrectly filed as it was made in response to a decision under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908, rather than a decision made under s 61A(1). This interpretation was consistent with the principles outlined in the cited case, which underscored the limited scope of review available in such circumstances. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the appellants' remedy lay in seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as they had already initiated this process on 31 March.

The Court of Appeal's decision was grounded in the procedural rules and legislative framework governing judicial review. By upholding the Registrar's decision, the Court clarified the parameters within which review applications must be made. The appellants were advised that their next step should be to pursue leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which they had already commenced. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking judicial review and the limited avenues available when those requirements are not met.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established