Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 39/2012
[2012] NZSC 64

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND MICHAEL HERON
First Respondent

AND RUSSELL MCVEAGH
Second Respondent

AND FORCE 1 SECURITY
Third Respondent

AND SIONE TANAKI
Fourth Respondent

AND PIO SAMI
Fifth Respondent

Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person

Judgment: 26 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (RECALL)

The application for recall of the judgment of the Court dated 18 July 2012 [2012] NZSC 56 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Siemer’s submissions in support of his application for recall raise, in substance, arguments which were relied on in support of the original application. They were all considered in the course of deciding that application. They get no stronger by repetition. We remain satisfied that the original application was correctly dismissed. We therefore decline to recall the order to that effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer sought to recall a decision from the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which had previously dismissed his application. The case involved Siemer as the applicant, Michael Richard Heron as the first respondent, and three other respondents. The nature of the dispute was centered around the recall of a Supreme Court judgment dated 18 July 2012. The court that heard the application for recall was comprised of Tipping, McGrath, and William Young JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grounds presented by Siemer in support of his application for recall were sufficient to justify the reconsideration of the earlier dismissal. Siemer argued that the previous decision had overlooked certain points, which he believed warranted a re-evaluation of the case. The court had to determine if the arguments presented in the recall application were substantively different from those previously considered and whether they provided adequate grounds for the recall of the earlier judgment.

The court found that Siemer's arguments for recall were essentially a reiteration of the points that had already been considered and rejected in the initial decision. The justices held that there were no new or compelling reasons presented that would warrant a reconsideration of their earlier judgment. They confirmed that the recall application was correctly dismissed and thus declined to alter the earlier order. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of new evidence or arguments that could influence a different outcome.

No further orders were made by the court in relation to the application for recall. The decision reaffirmed the dismissal of Siemer's original application, maintaining the integrity of the earlier judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established