Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

[2015] NZSC 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

[2015] NZSC 1

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	10 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

1. On 27 January 2015, Mr Siemer attempted to file in this Court an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal dated 21 January 2015. 

2. In that decision, the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal refused to accept applications for filing as they related to an appeal that had been abandoned.  The applications were described in the Deputy Registrar’s decision as an “Application for Review of the Deputy Registrar’s Refusal to Allow Filing” and an “Application for s 61A(2) Review Provided by the Judicature Act”.  Mr Siemer did not provide the Court with a copy of the applications. 

3. On 28 January 2015, the Registrar of this Court refused to accept Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal for filing on the basis that this Court does not have jurisdiction under the Supreme Court Act 2003 to entertain Mr Siemer’s appeal as it was a decision made by a Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal and not by the Court of Appeal.

4. On 1 February 2015, Mr Siemer applied, under s 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act, for a review of the decision of the Registrar of this Court not to accept his leave application for filing.

Decision

1. The decision in this case was made by the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal and not by the Court of Appeal.  The Registrar was correct that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal.[1]

   [1]See Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 110 at [11] and A Person or Persons Unknown v Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Ltd [2011] NZSC 79 at [6]. These two decisions were referred to by the Registrar of this Court in his decision refusing to accept Mr Siemer’s application for filing. See also Harrison v Auckland District Health Board [2013] NZSC 98 at [6].

2. The Registrar was therefore correct to refuse to accept the application for leave.  The application for review is dismissed.