Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 144 (11 April 2011)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 144 (11 April 2011)

Last Updated: 20 April 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA718/2010 [2011] NZCA 144

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER First Appellant

AND JANE DINSDALE SIEMER Second Appellant

AND MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY First Respondent

AND FERRIER HODGSON AND CO LIMITED Second Respondent

AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Third Respondent

AND DAVID COLLINS Fourth Respondent

AND JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER Fifth Respondent

AND CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW ZEALAND Sixth Respondent

Court: O'Regan P, Hammond and Arnold JJ

Counsel: Appellant in person A M Powell for Third Respondent

Judgment: 11 April 2011 at 10 am (on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The first appellant’s application to recall the judgment in [2011] NZCA 1 is declined.
   
2. The first appellant must pay the Attorney-General costs on the same basis as for an application for leave to appeal on a band A basis, plus usual disbursements.
   

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Arnold J)

[1] The first appellant, Mr Siemer, has applied to recall the Court’s judgment of 3 February 2011.[1] He argues that the judgment is “demonstrably inaccurate, as well as legally defective and unsafe” and seeks to challenge the Court’s reasoning in various respects.
[2] On behalf of the Attorney-General, Mr Powell has filed a memorandum opposing Mr Siemer’s application. The effect of his submission is that Mr Siemer is misusing the recall jurisdiction by attempting to challenge the findings made by the Court in its decision.
[3] In Erwood v Maxted this Court explained the recall jurisdiction[2] and provided guidance as to its operation. [3] This application falls well outside the guidelines and is effectively an attempt to re-argue the appeal. Accordingly we accept Mr Powell’s submissions.
[4] The application is declined. Mr Siemer must pay costs to the Attorney-General on the same basis as for an application for leave to appeal on a band A basis, plus usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Third Respondent.

---

[1] Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 1.
[2] Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 at [3] – [5].
[3] At [23].