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

Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

Case [2014] NZSC 192 19 December 2014

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Judicial Review

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 99/2014
[2014] NZSC 192

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

SC 108/2014

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 H M Carrad and S J Humphrey for the Respondents
Judgment:	19 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer applies for a recall of this Court’s judgment in Siemer v Registrarof the Supreme Court [2014] NZSC 179.
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 the Respondents

Details

AGLC: Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice [2014] NZSC 192
Case: [2014] NZSC 192
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Vincent Ross Siemer filed an application seeking a recall of the Court's judgment in a prior case, Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court. The matter was heard by McGrath, Glazebrook, and O'Regan JJ. Mr Siemer appeared in person, while the respondents were represented by H M Carrad and S J Humphrey. The primary issue before the Court was whether the grounds put forward by Mr Siemer warranted a recall of the earlier Supreme Court judgment.

The legal issues the Court had to address were whether the application for recall met the criteria necessary to justify a reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The Court had to examine whether there were any significant errors, omissions, or new evidence that could alter the outcome of the prior decision. The respondents argued that the application did not meet the threshold for a recall, as the arguments presented were essentially a reiteration of points already considered and dismissed.

The Court found that Mr Siemer's application did not present any new or compelling grounds that would warrant a reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The Court was of the opinion that the application was primarily a repetition of arguments that had already been comprehensively addressed and dismissed. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and the original judgment remained unchanged. This decision was made based on the lack of merit in the application and the absence of any substantial reasons to alter the prior ruling.

Orders