Siemer v Heron

In Siemer v Heron, the appellant, Vincent Ross Siemer, appealed a decision made by Judge Bouchier in the District Court. The respondents, Michael Richard Heron, Russell McVeagh, Force 1 Security Limited, Sioine Tanaki, and Pio Sami, sought an order for security for costs, which Mr. Siemer opposed. The legal issues before the court were whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the norm of requiring security for costs and, if not, the appropriate amount of security.

The court found that there were no special circumstances present in this case to warrant a departure from the norm of requiring security for costs. The issues Mr. Siemer sought to raise had already been the subject of proceedings, and he had refused to pay security in those proceedings, resulting in the proceedings being deemed abandoned. Additionally, Mr. Siemer's affidavit regarding his financial position was lacking in detail, and he had not paid previous costs orders made against him. The court concluded that the prospects of the appeal succeeding were remote, and that the respondents had a legitimate interest in not being exposed to the cost of responding to Mr. Siemer's appeal without the security of the payments they sought.

The court ordered that Mr. Siemer pay into Court by way of security for costs $995 on account of the first and second respondents and $995 on account of the third, fourth, and fifth respondents. If Mr. Siemer failed to pay those sums within 10 working days of the date of issue of the decision, the appeal would be deemed abandoned under s 74(2) of the District Courts Act, and the respondents would not be required to take any further steps on the appeal.

The court reserved leave to the parties to apply for a variation of the timetable order made in its minute of 31 July 2012 to accommodate the order requiring the payment of security.