Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court

[2025] NZHC 1451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-352

[2025] NZHC 1451

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER

Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	5 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

[1]    On 22 April 2025, the applicant, Mr Siemer, attempted to lodge a statement of claim in this Court. The proposed claim, drafted by Mr Siemer personally, seeks judicial review of a decision of a Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court.

[2]    On 19 May 2025, a Deputy Registrar of this Court advised Mr Siemer that the High Court was unable to accept any of the documents he had tendered. She rejected the documents because Mr Siemer’s was attempting to seek judicial review of another Senior Court. Mr Siemer now applies, under r 2.11(1)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016, for a review of the Deputy Registrar’s refusal to accept the documents.

Background

[3]    Mr Siemer is the respondent in an application for an order restricting him from commencing  or  continuing  civil  proceedings  without  leave   of   the   Court.1   The applicants are the Attorney-General and the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

1      Senior Courts Act 2016, s 166.

SIEMER v REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT [2025] NZHC 1451 [5 June 2025]

The Attorney-General proposes to rely, in support of her application, on a suite of judicial decisions involving Mr Siemer over the years.

[4]    In 2022, Duffy J ruled that a number of decisions on which the Attorney-General wished to rely, along with several other documents, were inadmissible.2 In 2024 Duffy J’s decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.3 The Court held that s 50 of the Evidence Act 2006 (which generally deems evidence of a judgment or a finding of fact in a civil proceeding inadmissible in other proceedings) did not apply in the context of an application to restrict a litigant from commencing or continuing proceedings.4 The issue in the application will be whether Mr Siemer has brought two or more proceedings which are “totally without merit”. The Court held the decisions represent an authentic and reliable record of the earlier proceedings, which the Court can use to help determine the merits of Mr Siemer’s various claims.5

[5]    Mr Siemer was unhappy with the decision of the Court of Appeal and applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. He also sought a waiver of the usual filing fee. A Deputy Registrar at the Supreme Court declined Mr Siemer’s application for waiver. Mr Siemer asked that the Deputy Registrar’s decision be reviewed by a Judge.

The waiver application

[6]    In the Supreme Court there are two grounds on which fees may be waived. An applicant must show that he or she is unable to pay the fee,6 or that the appeal concerns a matter of genuine public interest and is unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived.7

[7]    On 20 March 2025, Miller J declined Mr Siemer’s application for review.8 He noted that Mr Siemer had not claimed he was wholly dependent on New Zealand

2      Attorney-General v Siemer [2022] NZHC 917.

3      Attorney-General v Siemer [2024] NZCA 435.

4 At [69].

5      At [62]–[67].

6      Either because the applicant is wholly dependent on New Zealand Superannuation or a specified benefit, or would otherwise suffer undue financial hardship (see Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003, regs 5(2)(a) and 5(3)(b)).

7      Supreme Court Fees Regulations, reg 5(2)(b).

8      Siemer v Attorney General [2025] NZSC 16.

Superannuation and had not established he would suffer undue financial hardship if obliged to pay the fee.9 Assuming, without deciding, that the proposed appeal concerns a matter of genuine public interest, Miller J recorded he was not persuaded the proceeding is unlikely to continue unless the fee was waived.10

Proposed High Court proceeding

[8]    Mr Siemer seeks to file a statement of claim in this Court which challenges the Supreme Court’s decision to decline his waiver application. He alleges the decision breached his right to natural justice under s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He also alleges abuse of process on the part of the Crown and “procedural impropriety and illegality”. Mr Siemer says the decision was corrupt, and that the Supreme Court registry has a conflict of interest because the Registrar is one of those applying to restrain him from being able to commence civil proceedings without leave.

Discussion

[9]    In seeking to review this Court’s refusal to accept his documents for filing, Mr Siemer proposes to challenge longstanding judicial authority that decisions of the higher courts are not amenable to judicial review. In refusing to accept the documents, the Deputy Registrar relied on another decision involving Mr Siemer — Siemer v Registrar Supreme Court — which held that no meaningful distinction could be drawn for the purposes of judicial review between the Court’s registry and Judges of the Court.11 In that case Clifford J observed:

[27]      As a matter of principle, therefore, the exercise of the Registrar of such a power, being under the supervision of the Judges who comprise the Court, is to be reviewed by those Judges. In my view, that form of review is best understood as being part of the Supreme Court’s inherent supervisory powers relating to matters, such as Mr Siemer’s application for access to court records, properly before it. The Registrar’s decision to decline Mr Siemer’s request will be reviewable by a Supreme Court Judge in like manner as, for example, the way in which decisions by the registrar refusing to accept leave to appeal are reviewed.

[28]      Furthermore, as Mr Keith submitted, it is clear that judicial review is not available to challenge the actions of the Higher Courts.

9 At [5].

10 At [6].

11     Siemer v Registrar Supreme Court [2014] NZHC 1179. Footnotes omitted.

[10]   Justice Clifford’s remarks have since been endorsed and adopted by other senior courts, including the Supreme Court.12 It is settled law that a litigant may not seek judicial review of the actions or decisions of a Registrar in any of the senior courts.

[11]   In this case, in any event, Mr Siemer’s difficulty is more fundamental. The refusal to waive his Supreme Court  filing  fee  has  been  reviewed  by  Miller  J.  Mr Siemer now wishes that decision to be considered by a full bench under s 82(4) of the Senior Courts Act, but whether Miller J’s decision should be further considered by Judges of the Supreme Court is a matter for them. This Court has no power to intervene in the way the Supreme Court deals with applications before it.

[12]   It follows the Deputy Registrar of this Court was entirely correct  to  reject Mr Siemer’s proposed proceeding. If necessary, I would have struck it out as a clear abuse of process under r 5.35B.

[13]   Finally, I note Mr Siemer’s assertion that the Supreme Court Registrar is attempting to act as a Judge in her own cause by blocking his attempt to appeal to that Court. Mr Siemer has not been blocked from seeking leave to appeal to  the  Supreme Court; the present dispute has only arisen because he does not wish to pay the filing fee. As Miller J noted, Mr Siemer has tendered no material which indicates he is unable to do so.

[14]   Under r 2.11(2) of the High Court Rules, I decline Mr Siemer’s application for review.

Boldt J

12     See Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court [2020] NZSC 135 at [9].