Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2013] NZSC 112

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 55/2013
[2013] NZSC 112

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

SIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS
Second Respondent

PETER BLANCHARD
Third Respondent

JOHN McGRATH
Fourth Respondent

WILLIAM YOUNG
Fifth Respondent

ANDREW TIPPING
Sixth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D J Goddard QC and L Theron for First Respondent
Judgment:	14 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A      The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Mr Siemer seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Wild J of 6 June 2013.[1]  In that judgment, Wild J upheld the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to accept for filing an application for review of a decision he gave on 5 September 2012 reviewing the Registrar’s decision declining to dispense with security for costs.

Our Assessment

[1]Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZCA 205.

1. As noted by Wild J in his judgment of 6 June 2013, his decision of 5 September 2012 was not made under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908.  It was made under s 61A(3) of that Act.  This is because it was a decision reviewing a decision of the Registrar, namely her decision declining to dispense with security for costs.[2]

   [2]At [4].

2. As outlined by Wild J in his judgment, the Court of Appeal’s review powers under s 61A(2) are expressly limited to orders made by a single judge pursuant to s 61A(1).  There is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).[3]

   [3]At [5]. See Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 11 at [4]; and Rabson v Chapman [2013] NZSC 65. at [4].

3. Wild J was thus clearly correct to uphold the Registrar’s decision.  No issue of general or public importance arises and none of the arguments raised by Mr Siemer point to a risk of substantial a miscarriage of justice.

Result

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

2. Mr Siemer is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (as fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.

Solicitors:
Gault Mitchell Law for First Respondent
Crown Law for Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents