Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 39/2012
[2012] NZSC 56

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND MICHAEL RICHARD HERON
First Respondent

AND RUSSELL MCVEAGH
Second Respondent

AND FORCE 1 SECURITY LIMITED
Third Respondent

AND SIONE TAMAKI
Fourth Respondent

AND PIO SAMI
Fifth Respondent

Court: Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
R G Simpson and T L Clarke for First and Second Respondents
P F Wicks for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Judgment: 18 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is refused.

BThe applicant is to pay the First and Second Respondents costs of $2500.00.

REASONS

The applicant, Vincent Ross Siemer, seeks leave to appeal directly to this Court from a decision of Keane J in the High Court. In that decision the Judge refused to dispense with security for costs in the High Court in respect of an appeal to that Court from a decision of the District Court which itself had fixed security for costs in respect of proceedings in that Court. Keane J carefully addressed the issues before him. The proposed appeal raises no matter of principle or general public importance. The issues are concerned with the application of settled principles to the facts of this particular case. Furthermore, the stringent criteria for an appeal directly to this Court from the High Court are not met. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying an appeal directly to this Court.
Mr Siemer’s references to correspondence and problems he has had with the Court of Appeal cannot affect the legal principles which s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 requires us to apply. Nor can these matters amount to exceptional circumstances within the compass of that section. The application for leave must therefore be dismissed with costs.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for First and Second Respondents
Swarbrick Beck Mackinnon, Auckland for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of New Zealand from a decision of Keane J in the High Court. The High Court decision had refused to dispense with security for costs in respect of an appeal from a District Court decision, which had itself fixed security for costs for proceedings in that court. The case involved the interpretation and application of settled legal principles to the specific facts of the case, and not matters of principle or general public importance. The stringent criteria for an appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court were not met, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying such an appeal.

The legal issues in the case centred around the criteria for an appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court, as set out in section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The Court had to consider whether the appeal raised matters of principle or general public importance, or whether it was concerned with the application of settled principles to the facts of the case. The Court also had to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The Court found that the proposed appeal raised no matter of principle or general public importance, and was concerned with the application of settled principles to the facts of this particular case. The stringent criteria for an appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court were not met, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying such an appeal. The Court held that the application for leave must therefore be dismissed with costs. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2500.00 to the First and Second Respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established