Stiassny v Siemer

[2013] NZHC 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2005-404-1808 [2013] NZHC 153

BETWEEN  MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY AND KORDA MENTHA (FORMERLY FERRIER HODGSON) Plaintiff/Respondents

ANDVINCENT ROSS SIEMER Defendant/Applicant

Hearing:         7 February 2013

Appearances: PJL Hunt for Plaintiffs/Respondents

Defendant/Applicant in person

Judgment:      7 February 2013

ORAL RESULTS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J [APPLICATION THAT THE JUDGE RECUSE HIMSELF]

PJL Hunt, McElroys, Auckland:  [email protected]

V Siemer, 27 Clansman Tce, Guf Harbour:  [email protected]

STIASSNY & ORS V SIEMER HC AK CIV-2005-404-1808 [7 February 2013]

[1]      Mr Siemer has requested that I recuse myself from hearing an application to recall a judgment of Cooper J delivered in December 2008.[1]    The grounds of the application are:

[1] Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson) v Siemer HC Auckland CIV 2005-404-1808, 23

December 2008.

(a)      First, that I admitted to him (in the context of an application I dealt with earlier today for Mr Hunt to be disqualified as counsel), that I had not read the file;

(b)Second, that I made it clear to him that I had not read the file and had not listened to his submissions, because after he had referred to a certain exhibit I asked him a question about whether or not he had made a complaint to the Law Society and that was the matter covered by the exhibit to which he had earlier referred;

(c)       Third, he said, in any event, I did not listen to his submissions;

(d)Fourth, he said that he had appeared before me in other proceedings: one, a challenge by way of judicial review to a decision of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in which I issued a summary judgment dismissing the review application; and, second, that there is an interlocutory application made by him to cross-examine the Official Assignee in other proceedings, that application having been heard six months ago and judgment not having been delivered;

(e)      The fifth point was that I have pre-determined the issue on the recall application because it is essentially the same issue as I have already ruled  upon  in  respect  of the  application  to  disqualify Mr Hunt  as counsel;

(f)       Sixth, I should recuse myself because the recall application ought to be heard by Cooper J whose judgment Mr Siemer seeks to recall;

(g)The seventh ground was that this is a serious application and yet the Court  appears  to  be  acting  in  a  cavalier  fashion.     Mr Siemer’s description was of a ‘kangaroo court’ and he says that he has no prospect of a fair hearing.

[2]      For reasons which I shall expand on more fully in writing in due course, I

reject the application and I will now hear Mr Siemer’s submissions.

............................................

Toogood J