Siemer v Solicitor-General - [2012] NZCA 68

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA545/2011
[2012] NZCA 68

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

CA558/2011

AND BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW ZEALAND
First Respondent

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND (ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN)
Second Respondent

Counsel: Applicant in person
A M Powell for Respondents

Judgment: 6 March 2012 at 3.30 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF ARNOLD J

The application for review of the Acting Registrar’s decisions as to security for costs is declined. Security for costs of $5,560.00 in respect of each appeal must be paid into Court within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.

_______________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

In a decision dated 22 August 2011 Woodhouse J struck out five claims brought (in separate proceedings) by Mr Siemer against, variously, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Chief Justice and two Judges of the High Court.[1] Mr Siemer filed the present appeals in respect two of the claims which were struck out, one involving the Solicitor-General (CA545/2011) and the other the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General (CA558/2011). Security for costs for each appeal was set at $5,560.
[1] Siemer v Chief Justice HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-8435, 22 August 2011.
On 22 September 2011 Mr Siemer applied for dispensation from the requirement to pay security.[2] He relied on the fact that he remains a bankrupt and argued that requiring security in this instance would constitute “unjustifiable government self protection in contravention of the government’s own statutes, and an undue restriction to court access.”
[2] Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c).
The Crown Law Office filed a memorandum on behalf of the respondents opposing the application. The memorandum noted that an effort would be made to consolidate the two appeals which are the subject of this judgment with two other appeals filed by Mr Siemer around the same time (one of which Mr Siemer has now indicated an intention to abandon). For that reason, it suggested that security for costs should be assessed across the four appeals and hence a 25 per cent reduction in the amount of security would be appropriate. However, in a memorandum in reply Mr Siemer indicated that he would oppose consolidation of the appeals, on the basis that they involve distinct issues and different respondents.
In two letters dated 18 November 2011, the Acting Registrar declined to dispense with security in respect of the appeals. Mr Siemer then applied for a review of the Acting Registrar’s decisions.

The Acting Registrar’s Decision

The Acting Registrar recognised that Mr Siemer had been adjudicated bankrupt, but said that impecuniosity alone was insufficient reason to dispense with security. There must be exceptional circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice that security be waived. The Acting Registrar noted that the High Court in the judgment under appeal had struck out Mr Siemer’s claims as an abuse of process because they constituted a collateral attack on final decisions of the courts. He found…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Siemer v Solicitor-General

Details

AGLC: Siemer v Solicitor-General [2012] NZCA 68
Case: [2012] NZCA 68
Decision Date: 6 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals from Vincent Ross Siemer against the Solicitor-General of New Zealand and the Chief Justice and Attorney-General of New Zealand. The appeals pertain to claims Siemer had filed against these respondents, which were struck out by Woodhouse J. Siemer sought to appeal these decisions, but the Acting Registrar required him to provide security for costs, which Siemer opposed on the basis of his bankruptcy. The Acting Registrar declined to waive the requirement for security, leading Siemer to seek a review of the Registrar's decision.

The court had to determine whether Siemer's financial situation justified waiving the requirement for security for costs. The court considered the general principles for security for costs in civil appeals, which require that security be paid unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver. The court assessed whether Siemer's appeals were arguable and whether there was a public interest in their determination. The court found that Siemer's appeals had little to no prospect of success, as they were considered to be collateral attacks on final court decisions and did not raise any reasonably arguable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal declined Siemer's application for review of the Acting Registrar's decisions, confirming that security for costs of $5,560 must be paid for each appeal within 20 working days of the judgment date. The court held that Siemer's impecuniosity did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the security requirement, and the appeals were not arguable or of significant public interest. Therefore, the court upheld the requirement for Siemer to provide security for costs for his appeals.

Orders