Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA318/2014
[2014] NZCA 491

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Appellant
AND	REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT First Respondent
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Second Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in person
H M Carrad for Respondents

Judgment:

(On the papers)

6 October 2014 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF FRENCH J

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 16 September 2014, I delivered a judgment upholding on review the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to dispense with security for costs for Mr Siemer.[1]
[1]Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2014] NZCA 456.
Mr Siemer has now applied for recall of my judgment.
The application for recall is opposed.
Mr Siemer and the respondents have filed written submissions. I am satisfied that the application can be adequately and fairly dealt with on the papers.
The application is made on the grounds that my judgment failed to address two issues:
(a)the conflict between the Deputy Registrar’s decision to waive the filing fee and her decision to refuse to dispense with security; and
(b)the public interest grounds of the appeal.
The principles governing recall of a judgment were set out by Wild CJ in the following extract:[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; see the application to this Court in Rainbow Corp Ltd v Ryde Holdings Ltd (1992) 5 PRNZ 493 (CA); Unison Networks Ltd v Commerce Commission [2007] NZCA 49 at [10]; and Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93, (2010) 20 PRNZ 466 at [23(b)(i)].
The basis of my decision was that the appeal was one that would not be sensibly pursued by a reasonable solvent litigant because its merits were highly problematic and there was in any event an alternative remedy available to Mr Siemer. The merits of the appeal were addressed as was the fact of waiver of the filing fee.
In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that there exists any “very special reason” requiring recall of the judgment in the interests of justice.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, acting pro se, has filed an application for recall of a prior judgment delivered by French J in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The original case involved a challenge by Mr Siemer against the Registrar of the Supreme Court's decision to deny his request to be exempted from providing security for costs. The Ministry of Justice was also a respondent in the appeal. In the initial judgment, French J upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision, finding that Mr Siemer’s appeal lacked merit and that there was an alternative remedy available to him. The current application seeks recall on the grounds that the prior judgment did not adequately address the conflict between the Deputy Registrar’s decision to waive the filing fee and her refusal to waive the security for costs, as well as the public interest aspects of the appeal.

The legal issues at the heart of the recall application revolve around the adequacy of the original judgment’s consideration of the two specified matters. Mr Siemer contends that the judgment failed to reconcile the contradictory decisions made by the Deputy Registrar and that it did not sufficiently address the public interest considerations that he argues should have influenced the outcome. The court was required to determine whether there was a "very special reason" to recall the judgment, given the principles established in previous case law that a judgment generally stands unless there are exceptional circumstances.

In dismissing the application, French J found that the original judgment had adequately addressed the merits of the appeal and the fact that the filing fee had been waived. The court concluded that there was no "very special reason" justifying the recall of the judgment, as the appeal's merits were highly problematic and an alternative remedy was available. The court found no grounds to believe that justice required the judgment to be recalled. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established