Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

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

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.
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.
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.
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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Vincent Ross Siemer sought to appeal against a decision made by the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal, which refused to accept applications for filing as they related to an abandoned appeal. The Deputy Registrar’s decision was dated 21 January 2015. Siemer attempted to file an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court on 27 January 2015. However, the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to accept the application on 28 January 2015, on the basis that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as it was a decision made by a Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal and not by the Court of Appeal itself. Siemer subsequently applied for a review of the Registrar’s decision under section 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Court considered whether it was appropriate to entertain the proposed appeal, given that the decision in question was made by a Deputy Registrar rather than the Court of Appeal. The Court referenced previous cases in which it had held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions made by Deputy Registrars. The Court noted that the Registrar was correct to refuse to accept Siemer’s application for leave, as it was not within the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the proposed appeal.

The Court dismissed Siemer’s application for review of the Registrar’s decision. The Court held that the Registrar was correct in refusing to accept Siemer’s application for leave to appeal, as the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal against a decision made by a Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Court dismissed the application for review under section 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established