Siemer v Stiassny

The case of Siemer v Stiassny before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand involves Vincent Siemer, the applicant, appealing against Michael Stiassny and Ferrier Hodgson, the respondents. Siemer is seeking to stay two orders made by the High Court: a fine of $15,000 imposed for contempt on 16 March 2006 and a subsequent order for immediate payment on 10 May 2006, as well as costs and disbursements totalling $183,568.78, ordered on 2 June 2006. Siemer contends that the inability to question the quantum of the costs will render his right to appeal nugatory if the stay is not granted.

The court had to determine whether the non-granting of a stay would render Siemer's right to appeal nugatory. This was considered in the context of the factors listed in McGechan on Procedure, derived from previous judgments. Siemer argued that the immediate payment of the fine and costs would likely lead to his bankruptcy, thereby nullifying his appeal rights. The court acknowledged that while the possibility of an appeal being rendered nugatory is not determinative, it is a factor to be considered. The Court of Appeal found that the financial position of Siemer needed further exploration to assess the impact on his appeal rights.

The Court of Appeal decided to grant a stay of the High Court orders pending further evidence from Siemer regarding his financial position. Siemer was given 21 days to file evidence of his current financial status. If Siemer's financial position demonstrated an inability to meet the immediate payment of $200,000, the respondents could then file evidence in opposition, and Siemer could respond within the stipulated timeframe. The Court would then consider the available material and issue a final judgment.