Legal Research
Cases
Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

Case [2014] NZSC 143 10 October 2014

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 91/2014
[2014] NZSC 143

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	10 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer applies for recall of this Court’s judgment in Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court.[1]
[1]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 125.
There is nothing raised in Mr Siemer’s application that justifies a recall of that decision.
The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Second Respondents

Details

AGLC: Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 143
Case: [2014] NZSC 143
Decision Date: 10 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer has lodged an application for recall against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice, following a judgment by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Siemer, appearing pro se, seeks to overturn the Court’s previous ruling dismissing his case against the Registrar for alleged unlawful detention. The case hinges on Siemer’s contentions regarding his treatment while in custody and his challenge to the Registrar’s handling of his legal affairs.

The central legal issues in this case revolve around Siemer’s application for recall of the Court’s judgment, specifically whether there are grounds to reconsider the dismissal of his claims. The Court must evaluate whether Siemer's application presents new evidence or arguments that were not previously considered, or whether the initial judgment contains any errors warranting a recall. The application for recall was examined to determine if it sufficiently demonstrates that the original decision was wrong or unjust.

In dismissing Siemer's application for recall, the Court found that no new evidence or arguments were presented that warranted reconsideration of the previous judgment. The Court concluded that Siemer’s application did not provide sufficient grounds to justify recalling the earlier decision. The reasoning underscores that the recall of judgments is an exceptional remedy, reserved for situations where there are clear and significant errors in the original judgment. As Siemer’s application did not meet these criteria, the Court upheld its earlier decision, dismissing the application for recall.

Orders