[Its-Spam-Bypass]Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 101/2020
[2021] NZSC 3

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	11 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 November 2020 (Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has applied for the recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 November 2020, in which his application for review of a decision of the Deputy Registrar was dismissed and his application for directions was also dismissed.[1]
[1]Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135.
The position in relation to recall of a judgment was summarised by this Court in Craig v Williams as follows:[2]
The case law has … identified three categories of case in which a judgment may be recalled. These are an amendment after the hearing to relevant legislation or a new judicial decision of “high authority”, where counsel has failed to draw the Court’s attention to a relevant legislative provision or decision and “where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled”.[3]
[2]Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].
[3]Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash(No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
Neither of the first two of the above grounds applies, so the present application appears to be based on the third.
Nothing in the application or the affidavit filed with it discloses any reason that justice requires the judgment to be recalled, let alone a “very special reason”. While the applicant makes it clear that he disagrees with a number of aspects of the decision, there is nothing in the material the applicant has put before the Court that requires reconsideration of the decision. The Court does not therefore intend to engage with the arguments the applicant has put forward.
The application for recall is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for recall of a decision from 27 November 2020. In that decision, the Court dismissed his application for review of a decision made by the Deputy Registrar and also dismissed his application for directions. The Court heard the recall application from Siemer, who represented himself, and dismissed it. The Court found that there was no basis for recalling the judgment, as none of the grounds for recall were satisfied. The applicant had not provided any compelling reason that would warrant the Court reconsidering its earlier decision.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the recall of the judgment could be justified on any of the grounds set out in the case law. The Court considered the three possible grounds for recall: an amendment to relevant legislation after the hearing, a new judicial decision of high authority that counsel failed to bring to the Court’s attention, or some other very special reason that justice requires the judgment to be recalled. The Court found that neither the first nor the second ground applied, and the application appeared to rely on the third ground.

The Court found that the application did not disclose any special reason that justice required the judgment to be recalled. While Siemer disagreed with several aspects of the Court’s earlier decision, there was nothing in the material he presented that required reconsideration of the decision. The Court did not intend to engage with the arguments he had put forward. The Court dismissed the application for recall, finding that there was no basis for recalling the earlier judgment.

The Court made no further orders. The application for recall was dismissed, and the earlier judgment of 27 November 2020 remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established