Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

[2014] NZSC 125

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 91/2014 [2014] NZSC 125

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
Judgment:	15 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]      Mr Siemer applies for leave to appeal against a minute of French J dated

28 August 2014 declining Mr Siemer’s application under s 61A(1) of the Judicature

Act 1908 for want of jurisdiction.

Background

[2]      Mr Siemer commenced judicial review proceedings in the High Court in relation to a decision of the Registrar of the Supreme Court declining him access to court documents.  On the application of the respondents, in a judgment by Clifford J

dated 29 May 2014, the proceedings were struck out.1

1      Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court [2014] NZHC 1179.

[3]      Mr Siemer appealed against that judgment and  the notice of appeal was accepted for filing by the Court of Appeal on 13 June 2014.

[4]      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, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal.2

[5]      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.

[6]      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.

[7]      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.

[8] On 28 August 2014, French J released the minute referred at [1] above.

Grounds of Application

[9]      The grounds of Mr Siemer’s application for leave are that:

(a)      French J erred in concluding that she lacked jurisdiction to make the order sought under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908; and

(b)the  minute  was  in  the  form  of  a  private  and  unrecorded  minute whereas the law requires publicly recorded judgments when dealing with such applications.

Our Assessment

[10]     French J stated that the proper course for review of the Registrar’s decision

on security for costs was under an application under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act

2      Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 100.

and r 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.  Accordingly, French J declined Mr

Siemer’s application for want of jurisdiction.

[11]     As this Court has previously recognised, the proper avenue for review of the Court of Appeal Registrar’s decisions is under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act and r 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.3   Given this avenue of review, this Court has previously recognised that a judge will “most unlikely” assume or exercise jurisdiction under s 61A(1).4

[12]     In this case, French J has decided not to exercise that jurisdiction.   That course was open to her and indeed, as the Registrar had already made a decision, the only logical course of action was to direct that Mr Siemer apply for review under s 61A(3).   On 2 September 2014, Mr Siemer, in accordance with the minute of French J, filed a proper application for review of the Registrar’s decision.

[13]     As  to  the  issue  that  the  minute  was  not  publicly issued,  this  Court  has previously  stated  that,  under  the  Court  of  Appeal  (Civil)  Rules,  “there  is  no prescribed  method  for  the  delivery  of  interlocutory  orders”.5      In  light  of  that, French J  was  entitled  to  issue  her  decision  via  a  minute  to  the  parties  of  the proceeding.

[14]     In conclusion, nothing Mr Siemer has put forward indicates that there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice.  Nor does it raise any matters of general or public importance.

Result

[15]     The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Second Respondents

3      Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 115 at [9]; Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 110 at [9]–[11].

4      Siemer v Official Assignee [2014] NZSC 42 at [5]. See also Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 115 at n 4.

5      Siemer v New Zealand Court of Appeal [2014] NZSC 69 at [3].