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

[2015] NZSC 21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

[2015] NZSC 21

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold  and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	11 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for review is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

1. On 27 January 2015, Mr Siemer attempted to file in this Court an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to accept for filing certain applications made by Mr Siemer. 

2. On 28 January 2015, the Registrar of this Court refused to accept Mr Siemer’s application for leave to appeal against the Deputy Registrar’s decision for want of jurisdiction.

3. On 10 February 2015, Glazebrook J dismissed Mr Siemer’s application, under s 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, for a review of the Registrar’s decision.  This was on the basis that this Court had no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal.[1]

   [1]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 1 at [5] and [6]. We comment that there are doubts whether, in refusing to accept an application for filing, the Registrar is acting under a power conferred by a rule of Court and therefore whether s 28(2) was applicable.

4. On 12 February 2015, Mr Siemer applied, under s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act, for a review of Glazebrook J’s decision.

Decision

1. It is doubtful whether s 28 (2) and (3) reviews are available in circumstances where an applicant does not have a substantive proceeding before this Court.[2]

   [2]See Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZSC 31, (2014) 21 PRNZ 815 at [3] and Siemer v Stiassny [2014] NZSC 70 at n 3.

2. However, even assuming a s 28(3) application for review is available in the present circumstances, the application must be dismissed.  Glazebrook J was correct to uphold the Registrar’s decision not to accept Mr Siemer’s application for filing on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.[3]

   [3]Glazebrook J has participated in the review of her decision under s 28(3) on the basis of Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZSC 31, (2014) 21 PRNZ 815 at [3] and Siemer v Stiassny [2014] NZSC 80 at [6].