Vincent Siemer v New Zealand Court of Appeal and Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 30/2014
[2014] NZSC 69

BETWEEN

VINCENT SIEMER
Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND COURT OF APPEAL
First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person A M Powell for Second Respondent
Judgment:	11 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant issued High Court proceedings against the Court of Appeal and the Attorney-General challenging a decision made by Wild J in the Court of Appeal as to security for costs. These proceedings were struck out in the High Court and he then appealed to the Court of Appeal. Security for costs was fixed in the sum of $5,880. The applicant then applied (under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908) for an order, by a judge, waiving the requirement to provide security. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal rejected the application on the basis that the correct procedure was for such an application to be made to the Registrar. The applicant then applied under r 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 for a review of the Registrar’s decision. The result was an email from the Registry to the applicant which recorded:
Justice French directs:
“I uphold the Registrar’s decision. Application to review dismissed for the reasons articulated in Siemer v Official Assignee [2014] NZCA 3.” French J, 11/03/2014
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against this decision. The basis of the proposed appeal is that it was not open to French J to dismiss his application for review in this comparatively informal way, by what he claims was a “Secret Judgment”.
Under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, there is no prescribed method for the delivery of interlocutory orders which can be, and often are, noted in handwriting on the file. The applicant relies on the Public Records Act 2005 but this merely requires that full and accurate records are maintained. Moreover, where an application in a case raises an issue that is identical to the issue raised in a previous case, a judge is entitled to refer to the reasoning in the earlier case as the basis for his or her decision in the present case rather than setting out again the full reasoning. We therefore see no point of law of public or general importance. As well there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Siemer filed a case against the New Zealand Court of Appeal and the Attorney-General, challenging a decision regarding security for costs made by Wild J in the Court of Appeal. Siemer initiated High Court proceedings against the Court of Appeal and the Attorney-General, but these were struck out. Siemer subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, where security for costs was set at $5,880. Siemer then applied to a judge to waive the requirement to provide security, which was rejected by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The applicant then sought a review of the Registrar’s decision under r 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, which was dismissed by Justice French.

The primary legal issues before the Court involved the procedural correctness of French J's dismissal of Siemer's application for review, specifically whether French J could dismiss the application in such an informal manner, referred to by Siemer as a "Secret Judgment." Siemer argued that the dismissal was not in accordance with the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, which do not mandate a specific method for delivering interlocutory orders. Additionally, Siemer cited the Public Records Act 2005, which requires full and accurate records to be maintained, although the Court noted that this Act does not dictate the formality of the delivery of judgments. Siemer also argued that the dismissal appeared to result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court found that there was no prescribed method for the delivery of interlocutory orders, which can often be noted in handwriting on the file. The Court also held that where an application raises an issue identical to one in a previous case, a judge is entitled to refer to the reasoning in the earlier case rather than setting out the full reasoning again. The Court found that Siemer’s arguments did not raise a point of law of public or general importance and that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed Siemer's application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established