Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA422/2012
[2013] NZCA 205

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Appellant
AND	JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER & ORS Respondent

Court:

Wild J

Judgment:

(On the papers)

6 June 2013 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF WILD J

The appellant’s application to review the Registrar’s decision of 28 September 2012 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

By application dated 3 October 2012 Mr Siemer applies to review the decision of this Court’s Registrar on 28 September 2012 refusing to accept for filing a notice of appeal or review of a decision I gave on 5 September 2012 reviewing the Registrar’s decision declining to dispense with security for costs. Having reviewed the Registrar’s decision, I upheld it.
In her 28 September 2012 decision the Registrar stated:
There is no jurisdiction for this appeal. You cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly your documents are not accepted for filing and are returned to you (enclosed).
In his application of 3 October Mr Siemer states that the Registrar’s decision is wrong in law. He sets out s 61A of the Judicature Act 1908. He states:
4.The Chamber’s ruling was by a single judge, made without a hearing.
5.As the Appellant’s appeal of the Chamber’s ruling was within time and met the above guidelines, the Registrar had no lawful power to refuse to file the application.
Mr Siemer is not correct in asserting that my decision of 5 September was a decision made under s 61A(1). It was made under s 61A(3), because it was a decision reviewing a decision of the Registrar, namely her decision declining to dispense with security for costs.
This Court’s review powers under s 61A(2) are expressly limited to orders made by a single Judge pursuant to s 61A(1). There is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).[1]
[1]Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 11 at [4].
Accordingly, having reviewed the Registrar’s decision of 28 September 2012 I uphold it. I dismiss Mr Siemer’s application.

Solicitors:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, the appellant, applied to review the Registrar's decision of 28 September 2012, which had refused to accept for filing a notice of appeal against a decision made by Wild J on 5 September 2012. Wild J had reviewed the Registrar's decision declining to dispense with security for costs. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others, the respondents, opposed the application. The appeal was dismissed by Wild J on the basis that the Registrar had correctly determined there was no jurisdiction for the appeal, as an appeal cannot be made from a decision of the Court of Appeal to itself.

The legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the Registrar correctly refused to accept for filing the notice of appeal, and if the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision under section 61A of the Judicature Act 1908. The appellant argued that the Registrar's decision was wrong in law, as his appeal was within time and met the guidelines for such appeals. However, Wild J found that the appellant's appeal was not made under section 61A(1) of the Act, but rather under section 61A(3), as it was a review of a decision made by the Registrar. Wild J further clarified that the Court's review powers under section 61A(2) are limited to orders made by a single judge pursuant to section 61A(1), and there was no power for the Court to review decisions made under section 61A(3).

Wild J concluded that the Registrar's decision of 28 September 2012 was correct, and dismissed the appellant's application to review that decision. The court found that there was no jurisdiction for the appeal, as an appeal cannot be made from a decision of the Court of Appeal to itself. The appellant's argument that the Registrar's decision was wrong in law was rejected, as it was found that the appeal was not made under the correct section of the Act. The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Judicature Act 1908, and the limited review powers of the Court of Appeal.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's application to review the Registrar's decision, finding that the Registrar correctly refused to accept for filing the notice of appeal. The court held that there was no jurisdiction for the appeal, as an appeal cannot be made from a decision of the Court of Appeal to itself. The appellant's argument that the Registrar's decision was wrong in law was rejected, as the court found that the appeal was not made under the correct section of the Act. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Judicature Act 1908, and the limited review powers of the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established