STIASSNY & ORS V SIEMER HC AK CIV-2005-404-1808

STIASSNY & ORS V SIEMER HC AK CIV-2005-404-1808

Recusal was unjustified because a fair-minded lay observer, informed of the relevant circumstances including the Judge's conduct and explanation that he had read the material during adjournment, would not reasonably apprehend impartiality was compromised; prior adverse rulings and the brevity of oral submissions (driven by the applicant) do not amount to apparent bias and High Court Rules do not mandate that the original judge must hear a recall application.

Citation
openlaw-2afda555_47c3_4905_94d8_f11a0b9577d7.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Peter Stiassny; Plaintiff/respondent: Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson); Defendant/applicant: Vincent Ross Siemer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Recall Judgment; Application for Judicial Recusal / Hearing on Recusal Application (oral Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Application for the Judge's recusal dismissed; Judge continued to hear the recall application
Legal Topics
Recusal, Apparent Bias, Disqualification of Counsel, High Court Rules R11.9, Saxmere Test
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Judicial Conduct Recusal Apparent Bias Disqualification of Counsel High Court Rules R11.9 Saxmere Test

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Peter Stiassny

Plaintiff/respondent

Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson)

Plaintiff/respondent

Vincent Ross Siemer

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Recall Judgment; Application for Judicial Recusal / Hearing on Recusal Application (oral Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judge should be disqualified/recused for apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether the Judge had pre-determined the issues
  3. 3 Whether prior adverse rulings by the Judge require recusal

Ratio Decidendi

Recusal was unjustified because a fair-minded lay observer, informed of the relevant circumstances including the Judge's conduct and explanation that he had read the material during adjournment, would not reasonably apprehend impartiality was compromised; prior adverse rulings and the brevity of oral submissions (driven by the applicant) do not amount to apparent bias and High Court Rules do not mandate that the original judge must hear a recall application.

Court Disposition

Application for the Judge's recusal dismissed; Judge continued to hear the recall application

Orders

  • Recusal application dismissed