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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 24/2015
[2015] NZSC 63

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:	15 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of White J dismissing his application for review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to dispense with security for costs.[1] The applicant has challenged the participation of the second respondent in the appeal (CA 693/2014) and says security for costs should not have been ordered in favour of the second respondent.
[1]Siemer v O’Brien [2015] NZCA 86 (White J).
This Court has already dismissed the applicant’s objection to the participation of the second respondent in the appeal (CA 693/2014).[2] In dismissing the application for review, White J applied the principles set out in Reekie v Attorney‑General.[3] Those principles are settled and no point of public importance arises. There is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.
[2]Siemer v O’Brien [2015] NZSC 13 at [5].
[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.
The application is therefore dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his application for review of a decision by the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal. This decision refused to dispense with security for costs, a matter relevant to his appeal (CA 693/2014). Siemer contested the second respondent's participation in the appeal and argued that security for costs should not have been ordered in favour of the second respondent. The Supreme Court previously dismissed Siemer’s objection to the second respondent's participation in the appeal.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the principles applied by White J in dismissing the application for review were correctly applied and whether there was a point of public importance or an appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The principles applied by White J were based on the decision in Reekie v Attorney-General, which the Court had already determined to be settled law. The Court needed to decide if there were grounds to overturn White J’s decision or to consider the matter of public importance.

The Court held that the principles applied by White J were correctly applied and that no point of public importance arose from the case. The Court found no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court also ordered Siemer to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established