Siemer v Stiassny
[2014] NZSC 80
•25 June 2014
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| [2014] NZSC 80 |
| BETWEEN | VINCENT ROSS SIEMER |
| AND | MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY & ANOR |
| Court: | Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 25 June 2014 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for recall is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Mr Siemer applies for recall of this Court’s judgment in Siemer v Stiassny delivered on 13 June 2014.[1]
[1]Siemer v Stiassny [2014] NZSC 70.
That judgment dismissed an application for review, pursuant to s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, of a decision of Glazebrook J which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Supreme Court Registrar, under s 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act.
Mr Siemer’s recall application is on the basis that Glazebrook and Arnold JJ should not have been on the Court for the s 28(3) review. This is because Glazebrook J conducted the review under s 28(2) and Arnold J had been involved with the matter at an earlier stage. Mr Siemer also says that he should have been given the opportunity to make submissions on the composition of the Court.
The reason Glazebrook and Arnold JJ were on the Court was explained in the judgment,[2] by reference to this Court’s decision in Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation.[3] That case involved an application for review of a decision by McGrath J under s 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act. McGrath J was part of the Court deciding the s 28(3) review. In that case the Court said:[4]
A decision under s 28(3) is to be made by the “Judges of the Supreme Court who together have jurisdiction to hear and determine a proceeding”. The subsection has obvious application to decisions made by a single Judge under s 28(1) or (2) being reviewed at the subsequent hearing of the substantive appeal. In such circumstances, the Judge who made the decision would probably be involved in the exercise (which is why McGrath J has participated in this decision). We are addressing the applicant’s application on the assumption, but without deciding, that s 28(3) is available in the present, and rather different, circumstances.
[2]At n 3.
[3]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZSC 31 (Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ).
[4]At [3].
Mr Siemer was apparently unaware of this Court’s decision in Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation and so did not make submissions on the composition of the Court in his s 28(3) application. He has, however, now had the opportunity to make submissions on this point in this recall application.
The Court has considered Mr Siemer’s submissions but is not persuaded that its interpretation of s 28(3), as set out in Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation, is wrong. The participation of Glazebrook and Arnold JJ on the Court was required by s 28(3),[5] despite their earlier involvement in the matter.
[5]On the assumption a s 28(3) review is available in these circumstances: see Siemer v Stiassny, above n 1, at n 3.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.
2
0