Vincent Ross Siemer v Official Assignee and Michael Peter Stiassny & Korda Mentha (recall)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 21/2014
[2014] NZSC 60

BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Applicant
AND	OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Respondent

SC 23/2014
BETWEEN	VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Appellant
AND	MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY AND KORDA MENTHA (FORMERLY FERRIER HODGSON) Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ and William Young J
Counsel:	Applicant in person I T F Hikaka and E D Nilsson for Respondent SC 21/2014 M Heard and E D Nilsson for Respondents SC 23/2014
Judgment:	26 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of the judgment of this Court delivered on 30 April 2014 dismissing two applications for leave to appeal against three judgments delivered by Wild J in the Court of Appeal.[1] The complaint is that the Court issued a single judgment dismissing two applications dealing with unrelated respondents and what are said to be unrelated judgments[2] and in the absence of an order consolidating the applications. No authority was cited for the proposition that it was not open to the Court to act as it did and we are satisfied that there is nothing in the applicant’s complaint which would warrant the recall of the judgment.
[1]Siemer v Official Assignee [2014] NZSC 42.
[2]They were unrelated save in respect of some commonality between the challenges advanced by the applicant.
The application to recall the judgment is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer filed an application for recall of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of New Zealand on April 30, 2014. The judgment had dismissed two applications for leave to appeal against three judgments issued by Wild J in the Court of Appeal. The primary contention of the applicant was that the Supreme Court issued a single judgment dismissing two applications that pertained to different respondents and what were considered unrelated judgments, without ordering a consolidation of the applications. The applicant argued that this approach was erroneous and sought a recall of the judgment. The Official Assignee and Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson) were the respondents in this matter.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the propriety of the Supreme Court's issuance of a single judgment to dismiss two separate applications for leave to appeal. The applicant argued that the lack of consolidation of the applications was a procedural flaw that warranted a recall of the judgment. The respondents, however, did not provide any authority to support the applicant's proposition that the Supreme Court could not act as it did. The court had to determine whether the procedural concerns raised by the applicant were significant enough to warrant a recall of the judgment.

The Supreme Court, comprising Elias CJ and William Young J, dismissed the application for recall. The court found that the applicant had not cited any authority to support the claim that the Supreme Court could not issue a single judgment for two unrelated applications. Moreover, the court was satisfied that the applicant's complaints did not provide a sufficient basis for recalling the judgment. The commonality between the challenges advanced by the applicant did not make the applications related enough to require consolidation. 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