Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 6/2015
[2015] NZSC 52

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Carrad for First and Second Respondents
Judgment:	5 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of our judgment in relation to his application for leave to appeal.[1]
[1]Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 39 [17 April 2015].
The ground on which the application for recall is advanced is that the judgment “did not address the bona fide ground of appeal” in the application for leave. This refers to the statement in the application for leave that the order to which the application related prevented the applicant from pursuing his substantive appeal to the Court of Appeal on a matter which he says was described as a matter of public interest by a Judge and a Deputy Registrar.
We do not accept that the order had that effect. The applicant’s failure to meet the requirements of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 was the reason that he could not pursue his appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The application for recall is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court was heard by Elias CJ, Glazebrook, and O'Regan JJ. The applicant, Vincent Ross Siemer, sought recall of a previous judgment concerning his application for leave to appeal. The Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice were the respondents. Siemer argued that the earlier judgment did not adequately address the grounds of appeal, specifically that the order prevented him from pursuing his substantive appeal to the Court of Appeal, which he claimed was a matter of public interest. Siemer was representing himself, while H M Carrad represented the respondents.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the judgment had correctly identified the reasons for denying Siemer's application for leave to appeal and if the order indeed prevented him from pursuing his appeal to the Court of Appeal on grounds of public interest. The court focused on whether the order's effect was as Siemer had claimed, and if his inability to proceed with his appeal was due to non-compliance with the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The primary issue was whether the previous judgment had misapprehended the reasons for dismissing the leave to appeal application.

The Supreme Court found that the order did not prevent Siemer from pursuing his appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds he claimed. The court concluded that the real reason Siemer could not proceed with his appeal was his failure to comply with the Court of Appeal rules. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for recall, affirming that the earlier judgment correctly identified the reasons for denying Siemer's application for leave to appeal. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision, and no further orders were made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established