Legal Research
Cases
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassney

Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassney

Case [2013] NZSC 137 4 December 2013

Jurisdiction

Appeal

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 90/2013
[2013] NZSC 137

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Appellant

AND

MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY
First Respondent

KORDA MENTHA
Second Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person P J L Hunt and J E Tomlinson for Respondents
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 Stiassny SC 90/2013 [2013] NZSC 114.
The application raises no new matters that would justify recall.
The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
McElroys for Respondents

Details

AGLC: Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassney [2013] NZSC 137
Case: [2013] NZSC 137
Decision Date: 4 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer appealed against a decision made by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, represented by Michael Peter Stiassney, with Korda Mentha also involved as a party. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with assessing Siemer's application to recall the judgment made in Siemer v Stiassny. Siemer was representing himself in the appeal, while the respondents were represented by counsel P J L Hunt and J E Tomlinson, with McElroys acting as their solicitors.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Siemer's application for recall was justified, given that it did not present any new matters that could warrant a reconsideration of the original judgment. The Court needed to determine whether the application met the criteria for recall, as established in the case law. The respondents argued that the application for recall did not introduce any new, significant information or arguments that would warrant a re-evaluation of the Court of Appeal's decision.

The Supreme Court found that Siemer's application for recall did not present any new matters that would justify a reconsideration of the original judgment. The Court held that the application did not meet the criteria for recall as established in the relevant case law. Consequently, the Court dismissed Siemer's application for recall. The Court did not provide any specific orders beyond dismissing the application.

Orders