Siemer v Heron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 56/2012
[2012] NZSC 91

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND MICHAEL HERON
First Respondent

AND RUSSELL MCVEAGH
Second Respondent

AND FORCE 1 SECURITY
Third Respondent

AND SIONE TANAKI
Fourth Respondent

AND PIO SAMI
Fifth Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, William Young and Chambers JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
T L Clarke for First and Second Respondents
P F Wicks for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Judgment: 30 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

REASONS

The proposed appeal arises out of a judgment of Keane J fixing security for costs[1] on an appeal from a judgment of the District Court also dealing with security for costs.[2] The security required to be provided by Mr Siemer for the appeal to the High Court was $800. An application for leave to appeal direct to this Court was dismissed[3] as was a later recall application.[4] Mr Siemer has also challenged the judgment of Keane J in the Court of Appeal.[5] In respect of that appeal, the Acting-Registrar declined to dispense with security for costs and Wild J later dismissed an application for review. The result is that Mr Siemer is required to provide security for costs in the sum of $11,200. He now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of Wild J.
[1]      Siemer v Heron HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-6880, 17 March 2011.
[2]      Siemer v Heron DC Auckland CIV-2008-004-0479, 4 December 2008.
[3]      Siemer v Heron [2012] NZSC 56.
[4]      Siemer v Heron [2012] NZSC 64.
[5]      Siemer v Heron CA103/2012, 8 August 2012.
The circumstances of the case were carefully reviewed by Wild J. The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public or general importance and there is no appearance of error. The criteria specified in s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are not met.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland, for First and Second Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for leave to appeal a decision made by Wild J, which upheld a security for costs order. The applicant, Vincent Ross Siemer, sought to appeal the requirement to provide security for costs in the sum of $11,200. This requirement stemmed from a series of decisions dealing with security for costs in relation to an appeal from a District Court judgment. The respondents in the case included Michael Heron, Russell McVeagh, Force 1 Security, Sione Tanaki, and Pio Sami. The case was presided over by Elias CJ, William Young, and Chambers JJ, with various counsel representing the different parties.

The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the applicant's appeal met the criteria for leave to appeal under section 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the appeal raised an issue of public or general importance, or if there was an apparent error in Wild J's decision. The Court also had to consider whether the criteria for leave to appeal had been met, given the applicant's previous unsuccessful attempts to appeal similar security for costs orders.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the Court found that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of public or general importance, nor did it demonstrate any appearance of error. Wild J's review of the circumstances was thorough, and the Court was satisfied that the criteria specified in the Supreme Court Act were not met. Consequently, the applicant was required to pay the respondents' costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

The Court's decision effectively concludes the applicant's attempts to appeal the security for costs order. The final orders of the Court include the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal and the imposition of costs on the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established