Siemer v Stiassny - [2014] NZHC 1272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-1131 [2014] NZHC 1272

BETWEEN
VINCENT SIEMER

Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL STIASSNY First Defendant

AND

KORDA MENTHA, formerly Ferrier
Hodgson

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the Papers

Judgment:

5 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday 6 June 2014 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

SIEMER v STIASSNY [2014] NZHC 1272 [5 June 2014]

The Registrar has referred to me as Duty Judge an ex parte application by Mr Siemer for leave to institute proceedings against Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha, formerly Ferrier Hodgson.

Judgment declaring Mr Siemer a vexatious litigant

[1] On 30 April 2014, Ronald Young and Brown JJ issued a judgment declaring Mr Siemer a vexatious litigant under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908.1 The Attorney-General had alleged that 19 specific proceedings instituted by Mr Siemer constituted vexatious proceedings. The Court held that 15 of these proceedings had indeed been instituted vexatiously.

[2] Section 88B(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 provides:

88B Restriction on institution of vexatious actions

If, on an application made by the Attorney-General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior Court, and whether against the same person or against different persons, the Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that no civil proceeding or no civil proceeding against any particular person or persons shall without the leave of the High Court or a Judge thereof be instituted by him in any Court and that any civil proceeding instituted by him in any Court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without such leave.

[3] At the conclusion of their judgment, Ronald Young and Brown JJ made the following orders:2

(a) Mr Siemer is not to institute any civil proceedings against any person in the High Court and in any inferior Court without leave of the High Court where the other party is:

(i) Mr Michael Stiassny;

(ii) Ferrier Hodgson – Accountants;

(iii) any Associate Judge or any Judge of the District Court, High
Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court;

1 Attorney-General v Siemer [2014] NZHC 859.
2 At [204].

(iv) the Attorney-General; (v) the Solicitor-General;
(vi) the New Zealand Law Society;

(vii) the Judicial Conduct Commissioner;

(viii) any barrister and/or solicitor of the High Court of New
Zealand;

(b) Mr Siemer is not to institute any proceeding which relates directly or indirectly to his dispute with Mr Stiassny, Ferrier Hodgson, Mr Robert Fardell and Paragon Oil Systems;

(c) all proceedings currently before the High Court and any inferior Court involving any of the above parties in (a)(i)-(viii) or involving the dispute identified in (b) (whether directly or indirectly) will not be continued by Mr Siemer without leave of the High Court.

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 Stiassny

Details

AGLC: Siemer v Stiassny [2014] NZHC 1272
Case: [2014] NZHC 1272
Decision Date: 5 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Siemer v Stiassny [2014] NZHC 1272 is a case involving a vexatious litigant, Vincent Siemer, seeking leave to bring proceedings against Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson) in the High Court of New Zealand. The application was heard by Thomas J on the papers, following a previous judgment by Ronald Young and Brown JJ declaring Mr Siemer a vexatious litigant. The key legal issue was whether Mr Siemer should be granted leave to bring the proposed proceedings, which were related to a long-standing dispute between Mr Siemer, Mr Stiassny, and Ferrier Hodgson concerning the liquidation of Paragon Oil Systems Ltd.

The court considered whether the proposed proceedings had a prima facie ground and whether they constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The court noted that Mr Siemer had already unsuccessfully challenged the relevant decisions in multiple previous proceedings, which had been found to be vexatious. The proposed proceedings again sought to relitigate the same issues, and therefore, the court found that there was no prima facie ground for the proceeding and that it constituted an abuse of process. The court exercised its discretion under section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 to refuse leave to bring the proceedings.

No further orders were made as the application for leave was refused.

Orders