| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA863/2013 [2014] NZCA 9 |
| BETWEEN | VINCENT SIEMER |
| AND | OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE |
| Judgment: (On the papers) | 11 February 2014 at 2.30 pm |
JUDGMENT OF WILD J
The application for review is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
By application dated and filed on 13 January, the appellant applies under r 7(2) for review of the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept his application dated 30 December last, and received by the Court when the Registry opened on 6 January.
The Registrar’s decision was made on 7 January. The appellant’s application of 30 December was made under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 for a ruling by a Judge dispensing with the security for costs a Deputy Registrar had fixed at $5,880.
In her 7 January decision the Registrar held there was no jurisdiction for the 30 December application under s 61A(1).
I agree with the Registrar. My reasons are set out in the judgment I gave on 7 February in Siemer v Official Assignee [2014] NZCA 3, where the appellant had made an identical application.
For those reasons I uphold the Registrar’s decision of 7 January as correct and dismiss the application for review.
- AGLC
- Siemer v Official Assignee [2014] NZCA 9
- Case
- [2014] NZCA 9
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Registrar correctly exercised her discretion in refusing Siemer's application for a ruling to dispense with the security for costs. The Court needed to determine if the application was appropriately made under section 61A(1) and if the Registrar had the jurisdiction to review the Deputy Registrar's decision.
The Court of Appeal, agreeing with the Registrar's decision, found that there was no jurisdiction for the application under section 61A(1). The Court reasoned that the application did not fall within the scope of the section, as explained in a previous judgment issued on 7 February in Siemer v Official Assignee. Consequently, the Court upheld the Registrar's decision, dismissing Siemer's application for review.
The Court ordered that the application for review be dismissed, confirming the Registrar's decision as correct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.