Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron
[2012] NZSC 56
•11 July 2012
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 39/2012 [2012] NZSC 56 |
| BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER |
| AND MICHAEL RICHARD HERON |
| AND RUSSELL MCVEAGH |
| AND FORCE 1 SECURITY LIMITED |
| AND SIONE TAMAKI |
| AND PIO SAMI |
| Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ |
| Counsel: Applicant in Person |
| Judgment: 18 July 2012 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for leave to appeal is refused.
BThe applicant is to pay the First and Second Respondents costs of $2500.00.
REASONS
The applicant, Vincent Ross Siemer, seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court from a decision of Keane J in the High Court. In that decision the Judge refused to dispense with security for costs in the High Court in respect of an appeal to that Court from a decision of the District Court which itself had fixed security for costs in respect of proceedings in that Court. Keane J carefully addressed the issues before him. The proposed appeal raises no matter of principle or general public importance. The issues are concerned with the application of settled principles to the facts of this particular case. Furthermore, the stringent criteria for an appeal directly to this Court from the High Court are not met. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying an appeal directly to this Court.
Mr Siemer’s references to correspondence and problems he has had with the Court of Appeal cannot affect the legal principles which s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 requires us to apply. Nor can these matters amount to exceptional circumstances within the compass of that section. The application for leave must therefore be dismissed with costs.
Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for First and Second Respondents
Swarbrick Beck Mackinnon, Auckland for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents
2
0
0