Siemer v Heron
[2011] NZCA 18
•17 February 2011
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA190/2010 [2011] NZCA 18 |
| BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER |
| AND MICHAEL RICHARD HERON |
| AND RUSSELL MCVEAGH |
| AND FORCE 1 SECURITY LIMITED |
| AND SIONE TANAKI |
| AND PIO SAMI |
| Court: Glazebrook, Arnold and Harrison JJ |
| Counsel: Mr Siemer in person |
| Judgment: 17 February 2011 at 4:30 pm |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for recall is declined.
B The appellant must pay the respondents’ costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Glazebrook J)
On 14 December 2010 the Court declined Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court setting security for costs.[1]
[1] Siemer v Heron et al [2010] NZCA 610; CA190/2010, 14 December 2010.
On 20 December 2010 Mr Siemer filed an application for recall of the judgment on the basis that it was “legally and factually unsafe”.[2]
[2]This application can be dealt with on the papers in accordance with r 51 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
The application is opposed by the respondents on the basis that the application does not fall within the established criteria for the recall of judgments.[3]
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 at 633 (SC); Unison Networks Ltd v Commerce Commission [2007] NZCA 49 at [10]; Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 at [23].
The respondents submit that the recall application is an attempt to relitigate the matters already considered by the Court and to challenge an outcome which the appellant refuses to accept.
We accept the respondents’ submissions.
Result
The application for recall is declined.
The appellant must pay the respondents’ costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.
Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondents
0
3
0