VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZSC 3
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant did not establish any of the recognised grounds for recall and did not demonstrate a 'very special reason' that would justify recalling the Court's judgment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZSC 3
- Parties
- Applicant: Vincent Ross Siemer; Respondent: Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Recall of Judgment / Application for Recall
- Outcome
- Application for recall dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Grounds for Recall, Finality of Judgments, Procedural Law
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vincent Ross Siemer
Applicant
Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Recall of Judgment / Application for Recall
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 November 2020 should be recalled
- 2 Whether any recognised grounds for recall (legislative amendment/new high authority decision/counsel failure/other very special reason) apply
- 3 Whether applicant established a 'very special reason' justifying recall
Ratio Decidendi
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant did not establish any of the recognised grounds for recall and did not demonstrate a 'very special reason' that would justify recalling the Court's judgment.
Court Disposition
Application for recall dismissed
Orders
- The application for recall of the Court's judgment of 27 November 2020 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND[2021] NZSC 3 [11 February 2021]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 101/2020[2021] NZSC 3BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMERApplicantAND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THESUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 11 February 2021JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for recall of this Court's judgment of 27 November 2020(Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020]NZSC 135) is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant has applied for the recall of this Court's judgment of27 November 2020, in which his application for review of a decision of theDeputy Registrar was dismissed and his application for directions was also dismissed.1[2] The position in relation to recall of a judgment was summarised by this Courtin Craig v Williams as follows:2The case law has identified three categories of case in which a judgmentmay be recalled. These are an amendment after the hearing to relevantlegislation or a new judicial decision of "high authority", where counsel hasfailed to draw the Court's attention to a relevant legislative provision or1 Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135.2 Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].decision and "where for some other very special reason justice requires thatthe judgment be recalled".3[3] Neither of the first two of the above grounds applies, so the present applicationappears to be based on the third.[4] Nothing in the application or the affidavit filed with it discloses any reason thatjustice requires the judgment to be recalled, let alone a "very special reason". Whilethe applicant makes it clear that he disagrees with a number of aspects of the decision,there is nothing in the material the applicant has put before the Court that requiresreconsideration of the decision. The Court does not therefore intend to engage withthe arguments the applicant has put forward.[5] The application for recall is dismissed.3 Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122,[2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.