Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 99/2014
[2014] NZSC 179

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

SC 108/2014

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Carrad and S J Humphrey for the Respondents
Judgment:	8 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for leave to appeal in SC 99/2014 and SC 108/2014 are dismissed.

BCosts of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents with regard to each application.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

Mr Siemer applies for leave to appeal against two decisions of French J in the Court of Appeal.
Both decisions stem from judicial review proceedings initiated in the High Court where Mr Siemer sought judicial review of the decision by the Registrar of this Court to decline Mr Siemer access to court documents. On 29 May 2014, in a judgment by Clifford J, the proceedings were struck out.[1]
[1]Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court [2014] NZHC 1179.
Mr Siemer appealed against that judgment and the notice of appeal was accepted for filing by the Court of Appeal on 13 June 2014.
On 16 June 2014, Mr Siemer also applied for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against Clifford J’s judgment. On 5 August 2014, this Court dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal.[2]
[2]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 100.
On 25 June 2014, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal ordered Mr Siemer to pay $5,880 security for costs in relation to his appeal to that Court.
On 2 July 2014, Mr Siemer applied for a dispensation of security for costs under r 35(7) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. On 21 August 2014, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal declined to dispense with the security for costs.
Mr Siemer then, on 21 August 2014, applied for a direction by a single judge of the Court of Appeal under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act as to security for costs.
On 28 August 2014, French J released a minute declining Mr Siemer’s application under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 for want of jurisdiction. Mr Siemer applied to this Court for leave to appeal against this minute and on 15 September 2014, leave was refused.[3]
[3]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 125.
In accordance with the direction by French J’s minute dated 28 August 2014, Mr Siemer applied on 2 September 2014 for a review of the Registrar’s decision under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act.
On 16 September 2014, French J issued her judgment dismissing the application for review of the Registrar’s decision.[4] This judgment is the basis of the application for leave to appeal in SC 99/2014 which was filed in this Court on 22 September 2014.
[4]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZCA 456.
On 22 September 2014, Mr Siemer applied for a recall of French J’s judgment. On 6 October 2014, French J dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for recall.[5] This recall judgment is the basis of the application for leave to appeal in SC 108/2014 which was filed in this Court on 9 October 2014.

SC 99/2014

[5]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZCA 491.

In reviewing the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs, French J applied the principles set out by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[6] She pointed to two valid reasons why Mr Siemer’s appeal would not sensibly be pursued by a solvent litigation.
[6]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.
Nothing Mr Siemer has raised indicates that there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice. Nor does the application cover any matters of general or public importance.

SC 108/2014

In dealing with the recall application, French J applied the settled principles governing the recall of judgments as set out by Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).[7] Nothing Mr Siemer has raised indicates that there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice. Nor does the application cover any matters of general or public importance.

Result

[7]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.

Both the applications for leave to appeal in SC 99/2014 and SC 108/2014 are dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents with regard to each application.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Vincent Ross Siemer sought leave to appeal against two decisions made by French J in the Court of Appeal. The decisions arose from judicial review proceedings where Siemer sought access to court documents, a request that was denied by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The proceedings were initially struck out by Clifford J in the High Court, a decision that Siemer appealed. Siemer then applied for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court against Clifford J’s judgment, which was dismissed on 5 August 2014. Furthermore, Siemer had applied for security for costs, which was declined by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, a decision upheld by French J on 16 September 2014, and again on 6 October 2014 when French J dismissed Siemer’s application for recall of that judgment.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Siemer's applications for leave to appeal were justified. Specifically, the Court needed to assess whether the decisions of French J contained any errors of law or significant procedural irregularities that warranted an appeal to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether Siemer's appeal had any reasonable prospects of success, and whether the appeals involved matters of general or public importance.

The Supreme Court found that the decisions of French J were sound and correctly applied the relevant legal principles. In the first instance, French J had properly reviewed the Registrar’s decision on security for costs, noting that Siemer’s appeal did not present a risk of miscarriage of justice or involve matters of general public importance. Similarly, in the recall application, French J had correctly applied the settled principles on the recall of judgments. The Court concluded that there was no error in French J’s reasoning or process, and that the appeals lacked merit. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, and costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondents for each application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established