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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 32/2015
[2015] NZSC 93

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 64 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant applies for the recall of our judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a procedural direction made by White J.[1]
[1]Siemer v O’Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 64.
The application is made on the ground that the judgment misstated the applicant’s proposed appeal ground.
We see nothing of substance in the application for recall. The judgment did not set out in detail the proposed appeal ground because it was not necessary to do so. There was no material inaccuracy in the judgment and there is no proper basis for it to be recalled.
The application for recall is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, an Australian resident, filed an application for recall of a judgment from the Supreme Court of New Zealand against Clare O'Brien and the Attorney-General. The original case revolved around Siemer's dissatisfaction with a procedural direction made by White J, which was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in an earlier judgment. Siemer sought to appeal this dismissal, contending that the court's judgment had inaccurately stated his proposed appeal ground.

The legal issues before the court involved the correctness and necessity of recalling the initial judgment. The court had to determine whether the judgment contained any material inaccuracies regarding Siemer's proposed appeal ground, and if the alleged misstatement was significant enough to warrant a recall of the judgment. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the judgment's content was sufficiently detailed or if the omission of specific details warranted any action.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand, consisting of Elias CJ, William Young, and O'Regan JJ, found that the judgment did not contain any material inaccuracies regarding Siemer's proposed appeal ground. The court held that it was not necessary to detail the proposed appeal ground in the judgment, as it did not impact the outcome of the case. Consequently, the court dismissed Siemer's application for recall, stating that there was no proper basis for recalling the judgment. The application was deemed to be of no substance, and the original dismissal of Siemer's appeal stood.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established