Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney General

[2025] NZSC 65

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 119/2024
 [2025] NZSC 65

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent
AND	REGISTRAR OF SUPREME COURT Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	17 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

The application for review of the decision of the Deputy Registrar refusing to accept for filing the application for review is dismissed.

REASONS

1. On 20 March 2025, I dismissed Mr Siemer’s application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to waive the filing fee.[1]  The review was decided under s 160 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

2. Mr Siemer then sought to file an application to review my decision before a panel of this Court under s 82(4).  He says he never sought a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision.  He claims instead that the Deputy Registrar was unable to make a fee waiver determination in this matter because he has a conflict of interest.  Mr Siemer says I had no power to direct that his “plea for ancillary declaratory relief” be treated as a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision.  Mr Siemer says also that the reasons for my judgment breached s 17(1) of the Public Records Act 2005, which relevantly requires courts to create and maintain full and accurate records of their affairs.

3. On 8 April 2025, the Deputy Registrar refused to accept for filing the application for s 82(4) review.  That course is available under r 5A(1)(b)(ii) of the Supreme Court Rules 2004.  He determined there was no jurisdiction to seek a s 82(4) review of a decision of a judge made under s 160.  He suggested instead that Mr Siemer seek recall of my judgment.

4. Mr Siemer has now filed an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s refusal.  He seeks a declaration that the refusal was “unlawful and a breach of natural justice” and orders directing that a review of my decision take place under s 82(4). 

5. The Deputy Registrar was correct that there is no jurisdiction to seek a s 82(4) review of my decision because that decision was made under s 160, not s 82(1) or (3).[2]  Section 17(1) of the Public Records Act requires the court to keep a permanent record of all essential steps in proceedings,[3] but it does not provide an independent right of review in this case.

6. There is nothing in the argument that the Deputy Registrar was disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest.  The most appropriate way to deal with Mr Siemer’s “plea for ancillary declaratory relief” was to direct that it be treated as a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision under s 160, which required me to consider the matter afresh.[4]  I then found, independently of the Deputy Registrar, that Mr Siemer had not met the criteria for a fee waiver.[5]

7. The application for review is dismissed.  If Mr Siemer wishes to have the application for leave to appeal continue to determination, he must pay the requisite filing fee.

[1]Siemer v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 16 [Review decision].  Mr Siemer seeks leave to appeal from Attorney‑General v Siemer [2024] NZCA 435 (French, Mallon and Wylie JJ).

[2]See Guy v Bank of New Zealand [2013] NZSC 127 at [3]–[4]. 

[3]See, for example, DN v Family Court at Auckland [2020] NZHC 3165 at [58].  For completeness, my decision recorded that the general grounds of Mr Siemer’s “plea for ancillary declaratory relief” were “based on perceived conflict of interest and alleged corruption”: Review decision, above n 1, at [3]. 

[4]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 160(4)(a).  That direction was permissible under s 82(1) and rr 5(1) and 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004.

[5]Review decision, above n 1, at [4]–[6].