Siemer v O'Brien

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 130/2014
[2015] NZSC 23

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

CLARE O'BRIEN
First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D L Harris for First and Second Respondents
Judgment:	10 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer asks the Court to recall its judgment in Siemer v O’Brien,[1] in which the Court rejected Mr Siemer’s application to appeal directly to this Court from a decision of the High Court.[2] The essential basis of the recall application is that the Court did not properly understand the basis for the leave application.
[1]Siemer v O’Brien [2015] NZSC 13.
[2]Siemer v O’Brien [2015] NZHC 2886.
Contrary to Mr Siemer’s assertions, the Court did understand that his intended appeal sought to challenge the role of the Attorney-General in the proceedings and addressed that point to the extent necessary.
More fundamentally, as the Court noted in its earlier judgment, where an applicant seeks to appeal directly to this Court, by-passing the Court of Appeal, the applicant must, by virtue of s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, establish that there are exceptional circumstances justifying that course. The only explanation Mr Siemer gave for his leave application was to avoid the “oppressive” security for costs regime in the Court of Appeal. Obviously, that cannot qualify as an exceptional circumstance, so that his application for leave to appeal could not succeed in any event.
The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for a recall of the Court’s judgment in Siemer v O’Brien. The case involved Mr Siemer’s attempt to appeal directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal, in a dispute where the Attorney-General was also a party. The Court dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal, holding that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting such a direct appeal. Mr Siemer sought recall of the earlier decision, arguing that the Supreme Court had misunderstood the basis of his leave application. He claimed that his appeal sought to challenge the Attorney-General's role in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue was whether the Court had correctly understood Mr Siemer’s grounds for seeking leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether Mr Siemer had established exceptional circumstances for bypassing the Court of Appeal, as required by section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The Court found that Mr Siemer’s sole justification for his leave application was to avoid the security for costs regime in the Court of Appeal, which was not an exceptional circumstance. The Court held that it had properly assessed Mr Siemer’s application and concluded that there were no grounds for recall.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that to appeal directly to the Court from the High Court, an applicant must show exceptional circumstances. The Court concluded that Mr Siemer had not provided any such circumstances, and his argument regarding the security for costs regime did not meet the threshold. The Court also noted that it had fully considered Mr Siemer’s intended appeal and the role of the Attorney-General, confirming that it had not misunderstood the basis of the application for leave to appeal. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established