Siemer v Stiassny - [2013] NZSC 110

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

[2013] NZSC 110

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY & ANOR Respondents

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

SIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS
Second Respondent

PETER BLANCHARD
Third Respondent

JOHN McGRATH
Fourth Respondent

WILLIAM YOUNG
Fifth Respondent

ANDREW TIPPING
Sixth Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	14 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J

The applications are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer has filed two applications for review, under s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, of decisions of the Supreme Court Registrar not to accept the applications discussed at [2] for filing.

Background to the applications

In early September 2013, Mr Seimer presented for filing two applications for leave to appeal to this Court against two decisions of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1]The decisions of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal related to applications in the appeals in Siemer v Stiassny CA 429/2013; and Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner CA 452/2013. CA 429/2013 was an appeal against High Court decision Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZHC 1567, in which Toogood J awarded costs against Mr Siemer in relation to an earlier recall decision. CA 452/2013 was an appeal against High Court decision Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZHC 1655, in which Williams J struck out judicial review proceedings brought by Mr Siemer.
The Registrar of the Court of Appeal had in both cases refused to accept applications for a direct ruling by a judge of that Court to dispense with security for costs.[2] The Registrar’s refusal was on the basis that there is no provision for a party to bypass the procedure in the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 relating to security for costs.
[2]With regard to Siemer v Stiassny, above n 1, the letter was dated 16 August 2013. With regard to Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, above n 1, the letter was dated 12 August 2013.
On 6 September 2013 the Registrar of this Court rejected Mr Siemer’s applications to this Court (referred to at [2] above) on the basis that there was no jurisdiction to accept them. The Registrar indicated that his view that there was no jurisdiction had been endorsed by Arnold J.
On 9 September 2013, after more e-mail correspondence from Mr Siemer, the Registrar further explained his decision. He informed Mr Siemer that the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction and can only accept for filing applications for leave to appeal pursuant to ss 7 to 10 of the Supreme Court Act. As the decisions were by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, not by the Court of Appeal itself, the Registrar’s view was that there was no jurisdiction to accept Mr Siemer’s applications.

These applications

Mr Siemer has applied, under s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act, for a review of the decision that there is no jurisdiction to accept his applications.
It does not appear that Arnold J’s…

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 [2013] NZSC 110
Case: [2013] NZSC 110
Decision Date: 14 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Vincent Ross Siemer sought judicial review of decisions by the Registrar of the Supreme Court declining to accept his applications for leave to appeal. The applications concerned refusals by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to accept applications to dispense with security for costs in two cases: Siemer v Stiassny and Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The Supreme Court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to accept the review applications, and if not, whether the Registrar's decisions were reviewable under the Supreme Court Act. The court considered whether the Registrar's decisions could be reviewed under section 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act, and whether the Registrar had the authority to make decisions on security for costs under rule 35(7) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. Glazebrook J concluded that the Registrar's decisions were correct as the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to accept Siemer's applications for leave to appeal against the Registrar's decisions. The Supreme Court dismissed Siemer's applications for review.

Orders