Siemer v Stiassny

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 20/2011 [2011] NZSC 43

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant

ANDMICHAEL PETER STIASSNY First Respondent

ANDKORDA MENTHA, FORMERLY KNOWN AS FERRIER HODGSON AND CO LTD
Second Respondent

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Third Respondent

ANDDAVID COLLINS Fourth Respondent

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER Fifth Respondent

ANDTHE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW ZEALAND
Sixth Respondent

Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ Counsel: Applicant in person
A Powell for Third Respondent

Judgment: 20 April 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of
$1500.00, plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the
Registrar, to the Attorney-General.

SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 20/2011 [20 April 2011]

REASONS

Leave is refused because the decision of the Court of Appeal[1] was undoubtedly correct in all its aspects. It would not therefore be in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal to this Court.
[1] Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 1.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer brought an application to the Supreme Court of New Zealand seeking leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute involving Michael Peter Stiassny, Korda Mentha (formerly known as Ferrier Hodgson and Co Ltd), the Attorney-General of New Zealand, David Collins, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and the Chief Justice of New Zealand. The underlying dispute arose from events related to Siemer's bankruptcy and subsequent legal actions against various parties. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Siemer's appeal, and he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court centred on whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct in all its aspects and if granting leave to appeal would be in the interests of justice. The Court of Appeal had ruled on various points of law and fact, and Siemer challenged these rulings. The primary focus was on the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision and whether the Supreme Court should entertain the appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision was undoubtedly correct in all its aspects, and there was no basis to interfere with the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that granting leave to appeal would not be in the interests of justice. As a result, Siemer's application was dismissed, and costs of $1,500 were awarded to the Attorney-General, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established