Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassny

[2013] NZSC 24

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 2/2013
[2013] NZSC 24

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Appellant

AND  MICHAEL STIASSNY
First Respondent

AND  KORDA MENTHA
Second Respondent

Court:             McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel:         Applicant in person
D Salmon and D Nilsson for Respondents

Judgment:      26 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

REASONS

1. Mr Siemer applies for the recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 March 2013.[1]

   [1]Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 11.

2. The recall application is on the basis that:

   (a)the judgment commented on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal without hearing from Mr Siemer; and

   (b)the judgment did not address one of the grounds put forward by Mr Siemer.

3. As to the first point, the comment regarding the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction was made following a decision by this Court that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal.  The comment was thus not essential to the decision.  In any event, the decision of Wild J was clearly made under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908 and not (as Mr Siemer submits) under s 61A(1).

4. As to the second point, all of Mr Siemer’s submissions were considered by the Court.  The conclusion in the judgment was that none of the matters raised by Mr Siemer point to a risk of a possible miscarriage of justice and that there were no issues of public or general importance.[2]

   [2]      At [5] and [6].

5. The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
LeeSalmonLong, Solicitors for the Respondents