Siemer v Stiassny - [2011] NZSC 63

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 49/2011
[2011] NZSC 63

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY
First Respondent

AND KORDA MENTHA FORMERLY FERRIER HODGSON
Second Respondent

Court: Blanchard, Tipping and William Young JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
J G Miles QC and P J L Hunt for Respondents

Judgment: 3 June 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

Vincent Ross Siemer seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 30 March 2011[1] dismissing his challenge to a judgment of Cooper J delivered on 23 December 2008 awarding the first respondent, Michael Peter Stiassny, defamation damages totalling $825,000 and the second respondent, Korda Mentha, damages of $95,000 ($75,000 for defamation and $20,000 for breach of an agreement settling a dispute between the parties).[2]
[1] Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 106.
[2] Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 23 December 2008.
An unusual feature of the case is that Mr Siemer had been debarred from defending the proceedings.[3] For this and other reasons, his appeal gave rise to a number of procedural difficulties. These were addressed in a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 22 December 2009,[4] the effect of which was to strike out the appeal in all respects save as to the quantum of damages.[5] A subsequent application for leave to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court.[6]
[3]Ferrier Hodgson v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 9 July 2007. The procedural history is outlined in the judgment under appeal at [10]–[18].
[4]Siemer v Stiassny [2009] NZCA 624.
[5] See [69].
[6]Siemer v Stiassny[2010] NZSC 57.
Most of the bases upon which the applicant seeks leave to appeal involve attempts by him to revisit arguments which have been conclusively rejected by earlier judgments and which we therefore need not discuss. These include complaints about Hammond J which have been earlier addressed and rejected by this Court. This leaves in contention three possible issues which we will briefly discuss:
(a)Mr Siemer’s complaint that the judgment of Cooper J wrongly accused him of engaging in “vile racist abuse”;
(b)a comment made by the Court of Appeal that its attention had not been drawn to a worse case of defamation in the British Commonwealth and that its own researches had not disclosed one; and
(c)complaints about the way Mr Siemer was treated in the course of a hearing before the Court of Appeal.
In the part of his judgment where he was reviewing the case for Mr Stiassny, Cooper J observed:
[48] [Mr Stiassny] complained also that some of the language used by Mr Siemer had apparently been calculated to be offensive to him and caused distress. Examples that he gave included ridicule of his name. Mr Siemer had distributed stickers saying “There is an ‘ass’ in our website Also there had been references to his Jewish religion and to the persecution of the Jews. Thus, in…

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 [2011] NZSC 63
Case: [2011] NZSC 63
Decision Date: 3 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer applied for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his challenge to a decision of Cooper J awarding damages for defamation to Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha. The Court of Appeal had earlier dismissed Siemer's appeal against the damages awarded, except for the quantum of damages. The Court of Appeal had struck out the appeal as to all other issues. Siemer raised a number of issues, including complaints about the conduct of the Court of Appeal and the way he had been treated during the hearing of the appeal. The Supreme Court found that the complaints about the Court of Appeal were not substantiated and rejected the argument that the Court of Appeal had not referred the conduct of counsel for the respondents to the New Zealand Law Society for Disciplinary Conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders