Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 60/2012
[2012] NZSC 95

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

AND SIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS
Second Respondent

AND PETER BLANCHARD
Third Respondent

AND JOHN MCGRATH
Fourth Respondent

AND WILLIAM YOUNG
Fifth Respondent

AND ANDREW TIPPING
Sixth Respondent

Court: Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
D J Goddard QC and L Theron for First Respondent

Judgment: 9 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to recall the judgment [2012] NZSC 92 is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall on eight grounds. None is made out. The principal ground is that the leave judgment failed to address the grounds for leave. All were considered, even though not all of them were referred to in the reasons. Section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 permits the Court, when refusing leave, to state its reasons “briefly and ... in general terms only”. The applicant’s proposed appeal, like his other applications for leave to appeal against Court of Appeal decisions concerning security for costs, does not meet the statutory criteria in s 13 and, despite the further information now provided, we remain unsatisfied “that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal”.
Accordingly, we dismiss the application to recall the judgment.

Solicitors:
Gault Mitchell Law, Wellington, for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, the applicant, has brought an application to recall a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which denied his leave to appeal. The respondents to the application are the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sian Seerpoohi Elias, Peter Blanchard, John McGrath, William Young, and Andrew Tipping. The matter was heard by Chambers and Glazebrook JJ. The applicant appeared in person, while the first respondent was represented by D J Goddard QC and L Theron. The court's judgment, dismissing the application to recall the judgment, was handed down on 9 November 2012.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application to recall the judgment met the criteria for recall as outlined in section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The applicant had argued that the leave judgment failed to adequately address the grounds for leave, among other things. The court was required to determine if the applicant's arguments had merit and if the recall was warranted based on the provided grounds. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant's proposed appeal met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal as set out in section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

In dismissing the application to recall the judgment, the court held that the applicant had not established any of the eight grounds for recall that were put forward. The court found that all grounds for leave had indeed been considered, albeit not all were explicitly referenced in the reasons provided. The court also noted that section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 allows for the court to state its reasons "briefly and... in general terms only" when refusing leave. Furthermore, the applicant's proposed appeal did not satisfy the criteria in section 13 of the Act, and the court remained unsatisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the proposed appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to recall the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established