Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2012] NZSC 95

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 60/2012
[2012] NZSC 95

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND  JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

AND  SIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS
Second Respondent

AND  PETER BLANCHARD
Third Respondent

AND  JOHN MCGRATH
Fourth Respondent

AND  WILLIAM YOUNG
Fifth Respondent

AND  ANDREW TIPPING
Sixth Respondent

Court:             Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel:         Applicant in Person
D J Goddard QC and L Theron for First Respondent

Judgment:      9 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to recall the judgment [2012] NZSC 92 is dismissed.

REASONS

1. The applicant seeks recall on eight grounds.  None is made out.  The principal ground is that the leave judgment failed to address the grounds for leave.  All were considered, even though not all of them were referred to in the reasons.  Section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 permits the Court, when refusing leave, to state its reasons “briefly and ... in general terms only”.  The applicant’s proposed appeal, like his other applications for leave to appeal against Court of Appeal decisions concerning security for costs, does not meet the statutory criteria in s 13 and, despite the further information now provided, we remain unsatisfied “that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal”. 

2. Accordingly, we dismiss the application to recall the judgment. 

Solicitors:
Gault Mitchell Law, Wellington, for First Respondent