Siemer v Stiassny - [2007] NZSC 53

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 26/2007
[2007] NZSC 53
BETWEENVINCENT SIEMER
Applicant

ANDMICHAEL STIASSNY AND FERRIER HODGSON
Respondents

Court:Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:Appellant in Person
J G Miles QC and M A Flynn for Respondents

Judgment:12 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

[1]       Mr Siemer applies for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding findings made by the High Court that he had committed contempt of court by acting in breach of interim injunctions. In the High Court Potter J had fined Mr Siemer $15,000 and ordered that he pay costs and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis, which she fixed at a total of $183,568.78. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Siemer’s appeal against the High Court judgments.
[2]       In his application for leave to appeal and supporting written submissions, Mr Siemer takes issue with the Court of Appeal judgment in relation to a number of procedural and factual matters. He alleges bias on the part of the High Court Judge and Judges of the Court of Appeal. He also challenges the fine and award of costs and disbursements against him. We have considered all points made by Mr Siemer in his written submissions. We are satisfied that we would not be assisted by having an oral hearing on the application for leave to appeal. The application to this Court plainly fails to meet the criteria for granting leave under s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and must be dismissed. In giving our reasons we address those of the points made by Mr Siemer that might conceivably be the basis for granting leave to appeal.
[3]       On 8 April 2005 a billboard was erected on a car parking building in downtown Auckland on the instructions of Mr Siemer. It referred to a website containing the words “Michael Stiassny – a true story”. The website concerned contained material relating to a company in which Mr Siemer had been a shareholder and of which, for a period, Mr Stiassny, one of the respondents, had been appointed receiver. The material on the website was highly critical of Mr Stiassny. The same day Mr Stiassny applied for and obtained an interim injunction from the High Court. This required Mr Siemer and another defendant to remove the billboard and Mr Siemer to remove all material on the website that in any way related to Mr Stiassny. Mr Siemer was also ordered not to publish any further information relating to Mr Stiassny, this later being confined to information associated with the receivership.
[4]       The respondents subsequently sought orders for committal of Mr Siemer on the grounds that he had acted in breach of the injunctions. Potter J’s judgments followed a hearing of that application.
[5]       In this Court Mr Siemer first seeks to challenge the High Court’s decision, upheld by the Court of Appeal, to deal with the matter…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Siemer v Stiassny and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NZSC 53
Decision Date: 12 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal from Mr Vincent Siemer against the Court of Appeal's decision that upheld the High Court's finding of his contempt of court. The High Court had fined Mr Siemer $15,000 and ordered him to pay costs and disbursements, totalling $183,568.78. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against these judgments. Mr Siemer's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court raised several issues, including alleged bias of the judges, procedural errors, and the sufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court found that none of these points raised an arguable issue of principle sufficient to warrant an appeal.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court included whether the proceedings should have been treated as interlocutory, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the appropriateness of the award of costs. The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings were properly treated as interlocutory, and the use of affidavits was in line with established practice. It also held that the High Court's application of the criminal standard of proof was appropriate. The Court found no evidence of bias or procedural error that warranted an appeal, and the award of costs was deemed reasonable.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered Mr Siemer to pay $2,500 in costs to the respondents. The Court concluded that the decisions of the lower courts were sound and that the application did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal.

Orders