Siemer v Official Assignee

Case [2014] NZCA 9


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA863/2013
[2014] NZCA 9

BETWEEN

VINCENT SIEMER
Appellant

AND

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE
Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

11 February 2014 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF WILD J

The application for review is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. In her 7 January decision the Registrar held there was no jurisdiction for the 30 December application under s 61A(1). 

  4. 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.

  5. For those reasons I uphold the Registrar’s decision of 7 January as correct and dismiss the application for review.

Details
AGLC
Siemer v Official Assignee [2014] NZCA 9
Case
[2014] NZCA 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Vincent Siemer appealed against the Official Assignee, challenging the Registrar's refusal to accept his application for a ruling dispensing with the security for costs set by a Deputy Registrar. The application under section 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 sought to have the Deputy Registrar's decision on security for costs reviewed. The Registrar dismissed the application, finding no jurisdiction for it under the specified section.

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.