Siemer v Stiassny

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 103/2011
[2011] NZSC 119

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY AND KORDA MENTHA
Respondents

Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
P J L Hunt for Respondents

Judgment: 3 October 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

REASONS

The Court of Appeal, in agreement with the High Court, considered that Mr Siemer's application was an abuse of process and struck out his appeal[1] against the High Court's order striking out his application to vary, set aside or rescind the permanent injunction against him.[2] Mr Siemer seeks leave to appeal to this Court. His submissions provide no basis whatever for the further appeal, nor for this Court to order the Court of Appeal to provide a transcript of the hearing in that Court. The applications to the courts below were plainly an attempt to relitigate a matter already conclusively determined against Mr Siemer. They were an abuse of process, as is the present application to this Court.
[1] Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 466.
[2] Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 17 March 2011.

Solicitors:
McElroys, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer filed an application with the Supreme Court of New Zealand against Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha, seeking leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of his appeal. The Court of Appeal had earlier dismissed Siemer's appeal against the High Court's decision to strike out his application to vary, set aside or rescind a permanent injunction against him. Siemer's application to the courts below was considered an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate a matter that had already been conclusively determined against him.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Siemer's application for leave to appeal was valid, given that his previous attempts to challenge the injunction were deemed abusive of the legal process. The Court had to decide whether the application should be allowed and if a transcript of the Court of Appeal's hearing should be provided.

The Supreme Court found that Siemer's application for leave to appeal provided no valid basis for further appeal, and it was an abuse of process, similar to his previous applications. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, ordering Siemer to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents. The Court did not find it necessary to provide a transcript of the Court of Appeal's hearing. This decision reinforced the lower courts' rulings that Siemer's attempts to challenge the injunction were an abuse of the legal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established