Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O'Brien and Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 24/2015
[2015] NZSC 92

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

CLARE O'BRIEN
First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	V R Siemer in person D L Harris for First and Second Respondents
Judgment:	26 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Siemer v O’Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 63 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant applies for the recall of our judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal a decision of White J.[1]
[1]Siemer v O’Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 63.
In that judgment, we said the applicant challenged the participation of the second respondent in an appeal to the Court of Appeal (CA 693/2014).[2] The applicant says this misstated his appeal ground in CA 693/2014 and seeks a correction to set out in detail his argument as to why he challenged the second respondent’s participation.
[2]At [1].
The application raises no point justifying recall of the judgment. There was no need for the Court to set out in full what the basis on which the challenge to the participation of the second respondent in the appeal was pursued.
The application for recall is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer has applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for a recall of the Court's judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal a decision of White J. The application concerns the participation of the Attorney-General in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Siemer claims that the Court misstated the grounds of his appeal and seeks a correction to detail his argument on the participation of the Attorney-General in the appeal. The case involves the Supreme Court's judgment, Siemer v O'Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 63, where the Court dismissed Siemer's application for leave to appeal a decision of White J.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the judgment needed to be recalled and whether Siemer's appeal ground was misstated. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the judgment's summary of Siemer's grounds for challenging the participation of the Attorney-General was accurate and whether the omission warranted a recall of the judgment. The Court also had to consider if the application for recall justified the need to set out in detail Siemer's argument regarding the participation of the Attorney-General.

The Court found that the application for recall did not justify the need to correct the judgment. The Court held that there was no necessity to provide a full account of the basis on which Siemer challenged the participation of the Attorney-General in the appeal. The Court considered that the summary of Siemer's appeal ground was sufficient and accurate. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed. The Court concluded that no point was raised that warranted the recall of the judgment.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss Siemer's application for recall of the judgment in Siemer v O'Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 63. The Court's decision stands, and no correction to the judgment will be made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established