Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2014] NZCA 414

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA173/2014
[2014] NZCA 414

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Appellant
AND	JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER Respondent
RODNEY HANSEN Second Respondent
DAVID HARVEY Third Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in person
D J Goddard QC, L Theron and A J Wicks for First Respondent
A M Powell for Second and Third Respondents

Judgment:

(On the papers)

9 September 2014 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF WHITE J

AThe application for recall is dismissed.

BThe appellant must pay the first respondent costs calculated as for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2014 I declined Mr Siemer’s application for an order that security for costs be dispensed with and dismissed his application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[1]

   [1]Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2014] NZCA 358.

2. Mr Siemer now seeks recall of that judgment.  The application is opposed by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

3. The background to Mr Siemer’s applications the subject of my judgment of 30 July 2014 is set out fully in that judgment.

4. The principles regarding applications for recall of judgments are well‑established.  They were conveniently summarised in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2):[2]

   Generally speaking, a judgment once delivered must stand for better or worse subject, of course, to appeal.  Were it otherwise there would be great inconvenience and uncertainty.  There are, I think, three categories of cases in which a judgment not perfected may be recalled – first, where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority; secondly, where counsel have failed to direct the Court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.

   [2]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.

5. Applying those principles to this case, I am satisfied that there is no basis for a recall of my judgment.  There is no suggestion that either the first or second categories referred to in Horowhenua County apply.  While Mr Siemer endeavours to rely on other decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, they preceded my judgment.  As to the third category, the matters raised by Mr Siemer simply seek to relitigate issues already considered and rejected in my judgment.

6. The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

7. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.  The Judicial Conduct Commissioner was put to the cost of responding to the application.

8. I accordingly order Mr Siemer to pay the Judicial Conduct Commissioner costs on the recall application calculated as for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Gault Mitchell Law, Wellington for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second and Third Respondents