Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 6/2011
[2011] NZSC 29

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND MICHAEL HERON
First Respondent

AND RUSSELL MCVEAGH
Second Respondent

AND FORCE 1 SECURITY
Third Respondent

AND SIONE TANAKI
Fourth Respondent

AND PIO SAMI
Fifth Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
T L Clarke for First and Second Respondents
P Wicks for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Judgment: 30 March 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for First and Second Respondents
Swarbrick Beck, Auckland for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court which required him to provide security for costs. The respondents to the appeal were Michael Heron, Russell McVeagh, Force 1 Security, Sione Tanaki, and Pio Sami. The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the appeal and granted leave for the applicant to appeal against the security for costs ordered by the High Court. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant needed leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against the security for costs or if the appeal was available as of right under section 66 of the Judicature Act.

The court determined that the appeal was available as of right under section 66 of the Judicature Act. The court held that the applicant was not required to obtain leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against the security for costs ordered by the High Court. The court found that the security for costs ordered by the High Court was excessive and could not be justified on the basis of the applicant's financial circumstances. The court also held that the applicant's appeal against the security for costs was not frivolous or vexatious, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to appeal as of right.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the security for costs ordered by the High Court. The court held that the security for costs ordered by the High Court was excessive and could not be justified on the basis of the applicant's financial circumstances. The court also held that the applicant's appeal against the security for costs was not frivolous or vexatious, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to appeal as of right. The court ordered that the security for costs ordered by the High Court be set aside, and the applicant was not required to provide security for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established