Vincent Ross 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 has brought an application against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others, seeking recall of a Supreme Court judgment. The primary dispute revolves around the refusal of leave to appeal certain decisions related to security for costs. The case was heard by Chambers and Glazebrook JJ, who delivered their judgment on 9 November 2012. Siemer, representing himself, was opposed by counsel appointed for the first respondent, with additional representation for other respondents.

The central legal issues in the case involved whether the Supreme Court's refusal of leave to appeal was justified and whether the Court's reasons for its decision were adequate. Siemer argued that the Court had failed to address all the grounds for leave and that his proposed appeal met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal. The Court needed to determine whether the applicant's grounds for recall were valid and whether the reasons given by the Court for refusing leave were appropriate and sufficient under the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The Court found that Siemer's application did not meet the necessary criteria for recall. It held that the leave judgment adequately considered all grounds for leave, despite not explicitly mentioning each one in the reasons. The Court relied on section 16(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which allows the Court to provide reasons in general terms when refusing leave. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Siemer's proposed appeal did not meet the statutory criteria for leave to appeal, and it remained unsatisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed Siemer's application for recall.

The final order of the Court was the dismissal of Siemer's application to recall the judgment, affirming the earlier decision that leave to appeal was properly refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established