Vince Siemer v Ferrier Hodgson

The applicant, Vincent Ross Siemer, sought a review of a decision by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, who had declined to accept for filing an application for leave to appeal. The appeal was against a judgment of the Court of Appeal that had dismissed Siemer’s appeal against several interlocutory rulings made in the High Court in defamation proceedings brought by Ferrier Hodgson and Michael Peter Stiassny. Siemer applied for a waiver of the filing fee for his proposed appeal on the basis that the matter concerned a genuine public interest and was unlikely to be commenced unless the fee was waived.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the appeal raised matters of significant public interest, which would warrant a waiver of the filing fee under the Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003. Siemer argued that there were two points of public interest: first, that the presiding Judge in the Court of Appeal, Hammond J, should not have sat on the appeal due to a connection with Stiassny; and second, that there was an issue with the administration of the Rules of Discovery by the High Court Judge.

The court found that Siemer had not provided a proper foundation for his assertions concerning the Judge's bias, and therefore, there was no basis to consider the issue of actual or apparent judicial bias. Additionally, the complaint about the administration of the Rules of Discovery was related to the circumstances of the particular case and did not raise a matter of significant public interest. The court concluded that the decision of the Registrar was correct, and the application for review was dismissed. The court confirmed the Registrar’s decision, denying Siemer’s request for a waiver of the filing fee.