Legal Research
Cases
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Case [2013] NZSC 136 4 December 2013

Judicial Review

Recall of Judgment

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC93/2013
[2013] NZSC 136

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Appellant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

HELEN DIANA WINKELMANN
Second Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for First Respondent
Judgment:	4 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer applies to recall the judgment in Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner SC 93/2013 [2013] NZSC 113.
The application raises no new matters that would justify recall.
The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office for the First Respondent

Details

AGLC: Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZSC 136
Case: [2013] NZSC 136
Decision Date: 4 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, the appellant, filed an application for recall against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the first respondent, and Helen Diana Winkelmann, the second respondent, in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The matter arose from a previous judgment where Siemer sought to challenge the conduct of a judicial officer. The core dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Judicial Conduct Rules within New Zealand's legal framework.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the application for recall presented any new matters that could justify revisiting the earlier judgment. This involved an examination of the grounds on which the recall was sought and a determination of whether these grounds were indeed new and significant enough to warrant a reconsideration of the case.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that the application for recall did not introduce any new matters that would warrant a recall of the previous judgment. The court carefully considered the arguments presented by Siemer and concluded that the application did not meet the necessary threshold for recall. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, affirming the earlier judgment and maintaining the status quo.

The final orders of the court were that the application for recall by Vincent Ross Siemer was dismissed, and no further action was to be taken on the matter as per the previous judgment.

Orders