Siemer v Stiassny [2011] NZCA 19 (17 February 2011)

Last Updated: 23 February 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA692/2010 [2011] NZCA 19

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Appellant

AND MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY First Respondent AND KORDA MENTHA Second Respondent

Court: Glazebrook, Arnold and Harrison JJ

Counsel: Mr Siemer in person P Hunt for Respondents

Judgment: 17 February 2011 at 4 pm (On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is declined.

2. The appellant must pay the respondents costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Glazebrook J)

[1] On 14 December 2010 this Court declined Mr Siemer’s application for an extension of time under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to file an appeal against an order made in a minute of Cooper J.
[2] On 15 December 2010 (and in an amended application of 22 December 2010) Mr Siemer applies for the recall of the judgment on the basis that it is legally and factually unsafe.
[3] This application will be dealt with on the papers in terms of r 51(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
[4] The application is opposed by the respondents on the basis that it does not meet the criteria set out in Horowhenua County v Nash No 2.[1] It is submitted that the application is plainly an attempt to have the Court consider again the matters which it considered and dealt with in the judgment which is the subject of this application.[2]
[5] We accept the respondents’ submissions.

Result

[6] The application for recall is declined.
[7] The appellant must pay the respondents costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
McElroys, Auckland for Respondents

---

[1] Horowhenua County v Nash No 2 [1968] NZLR 632 (SC). See also Erwood v Maxted [2010]
NZCA 93 at [23].
[2] See for example Gibson v Complaints Assessment Committee [2010] NZCA 161.