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

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

Application dismissed: the substance of the challenge had been previously determined by higher courts; the new over-charging evidence should have been raised in the separate originating proceeding, does not establish the requisite conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and would not have altered the outcome; the application constitutes an abuse of process and recall/set-aside is refused.

Citation
openlaw-00cf5369_29a1_45d7_b3ff_65b1c1cd62d1.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
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Breach of Compromise Agreement / Application to Recall/set Aside Judgment (post Appeal)
Outcome
Application to recall/set aside judgment dismissed as an abuse of process; relief refused
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Fraud Exception to Finality, Debarment From Defending, Permanent Injunction, Damages Quantum
Defamation Civil Procedure Fraud Injunction Abuse of Process Recall of Judgment Fraud Exception to Finality Debarment From Defending +2 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Peter Stiassny

Plaintiff/respondent

Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson)

Plaintiff/respondent

Vincent Ross Siemer

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Defamation; Breach of Compromise Agreement / Application to Recall/set Aside Judgment (post Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recall application merely re-litigates matters previously decided
  2. 2 Whether the impugned judgment was obtained by fraud
  3. 3 Whether the over-charging evidence justifies setting aside the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed: the substance of the challenge had been previously determined by higher courts; the new over-charging evidence should have been raised in the separate originating proceeding, does not establish the requisite conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and would not have altered the outcome; the application constitutes an abuse of process and recall/set-aside is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to recall/set aside judgment dismissed as an abuse of process; relief refused

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Issue of costs reserved for memorandum with filing dates specified