Siemer v Heron

In Siemer v Heron, the appellant, Siemer, appealed against the decision of the Associate Judge who dismissed his proceedings. The appellant argued that the Associate Judge's decision was made in open court and not in chambers, giving rise to an appeal. The respondents contended that the Associate Judge was exercising the jurisdiction of a judge in chambers, and any interlocutory application must be heard in chambers unless a judge otherwise directs. The appeal hinged on whether the Associate Judge's direction for the hearing to proceed in open court constituted a direction to hear the matter outside chambers.

The court had to determine whether the Associate Judge's decision was made in chambers or in open court, and whether the appellant had a right to appeal against the decision. The court examined the provisions of the Judicature Act 1908 and the High Court Rules to determine the appropriate procedure for challenging the Associate Judge's decision. The court found that the Associate Judge was exercising the jurisdiction of a judge in chambers and that the decision was interlocutory in nature. The court held that any such application must be heard in chambers unless a judge otherwise directs, and there was no direction given by the Associate Judge to hear the matter outside chambers. The court concluded that the appellant's only recourse was to seek a review of the decision under s 26P(1) of the Judicature Act 1908.

The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal as the Associate Judge was exercising the powers of a Judge sitting in Chambers under s 26J of the Judicature Act 1908. The application to strike out the proceedings was interlocutory in nature, and any such application must be heard in Chambers unless a Judge otherwise directs. The Court found that there was no suggestion that the Judge directed this matter be heard other than in Chambers. By virtue of s 26P(2) of the Judicature Act 1908, there is no right of appeal from a decision made in Chambers. The appellant's only recourse was to seek a review of the decision under s 26P(1). The appeal was dismissed.