Siemer v Stiassny

[2013] NZCA 206

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA362/2012
[2013] NZCA 206

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Appellant

AND

MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY
First Respondent

KORDA MENTHA (FORMERLY FERRIER HODGSON)
Second Respondent

Court:

Wild J

Judgment:

(On the papers)

6 June 2013 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF WILD J

The application for review is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

1. By application dated 2 October 2012 Mr Siemer seeks review of a decision I gave on 5 September 2012. 

2. In that decision I reviewed the Registrar’s decision of 6 August 2012 declining to dispense with security for the costs of this appeal, which had been fixed back on 27 June 2012 at $5,880.  Having reviewed the Registrar’s decision I upheld it and directed that Mr Siemer was to give security in the sum fixed by 3 October 2012.

3. For the reasons I will shortly give, the grounds on which Mr Siemer seeks review of my decision are not relevant.  Suffice it to say that he alleges my decision was wrong in both fact and law.

4. Mr Siemer’s application is misconceived.  He states that he is making it under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908.  However, my decision of 5 September 2012 was made pursuant to s 61A(3):  I was reviewing a decision of the Registrar within the civil jurisdiction of this Court.  As the Supreme Court pointed out in Siemer v Stiassny, the Court of Appeal’s powers under s 61A(2) to review decisions made by a single Judge of this Court are expressly limited to the review of interlocutory and incidental orders made by a single Judge in chambers pursuant to s 61A(1).[1]  There is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3). 

   [1]Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 11 at [4].

5. That Supreme Court decision was the result of an application by Mr Siemer, dated 7 January this year, in which he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from my 5 September 2012 decision.  That leave application was dismissed.  As Mr Siemer was the applicant to the Supreme Court in that decision, and appeared in person, he was aware of it, so he is aware that this present application is misconceived.

6. For the reasons I have given the application for review is dismissed.