SIEMER V JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER & ORS CA [2013] NZCA 205
The Registrar's refusal to accept filing was correct because the challenged decision was a s 61A(3) decision (a Court review of the Registrar), and s 61A(2) confines the Court's review jurisdiction to orders under s 61A(1), so there was no jurisdiction to file or hear an appeal against that decision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZCA 205
- Parties
- Appellant: Vincent Ross Siemer; Respondent: Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Ors
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Review Registrar Decision / Review Application (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed; Registrar's decision of 28 September 2012 upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction to Accept Appeals, Security for Costs, Registrar Decisions, Section 61 a Judicature Act 1908
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
Appellant
Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Ors
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application to Review Registrar Decision / Review Application (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to refuse to file the notice of appeal
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal can review decisions made under s 61A(3)
- 3 Whether s 61A(2) limits the Court's review jurisdiction to orders under s 61A(1)
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar's refusal to accept filing was correct because the challenged decision was a s 61A(3) decision (a Court review of the Registrar), and s 61A(2) confines the Court's review jurisdiction to orders under s 61A(1), so there was no jurisdiction to file or hear an appeal against that decision.
Court Disposition
Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed; Registrar's decision of 28 September 2012 upheld.
Orders
- The appellant's application to review the Registrar's decision dated 28 September 2012 is dismissed.
- The Registrar's decision of 28 September 2012 refusing to accept documents for filing is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SIEMER V JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER & ORS CA [2013] NZCA 205 [6 June 2013]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA422/2012[2013] NZCA 205BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMERAppellantAND JUDICIAL CONDUCTCOMMISSIONER & ORSRespondentCourt: Wild JJudgment:(On the papers)6 June 2013 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF WILD JThe appellant's application to review the Registrar's decision of 28 September2012 is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________[1] By application dated 3 October 2012 Mr Siemer applies to review thedecision of this Court's Registrar on 28 September 2012 refusing to accept for filing a notice of appeal or review of a decision I gave on 5 September 2012 reviewing theRegistrar's decision declining to dispense with security for costs. Having reviewed the Registrar's decision, I upheld it.[2] In her 28 September 2012 decision the Registrar stated:There is no jurisdiction for this appeal. You cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly your documents are not accepted for filing and are returned to you (enclosed).[3] In his application of 3 October Mr Siemer states that the Registrar's decisionis wrong in law. He sets out s 61A of the Judicature Act 1908. He states:4. The Chamber's ruling was by a single judge, made without ahearing.5. As the Appellant's appeal of the Chamber's ruling was within timeand met the above guidelines, the Registrar had no lawful power to refuse to file the application.[4] Mr Siemer is not correct in asserting that my decision of 5 September was a decision made under s 61A(1). It was made under s 61A(3), because it was a decision reviewing a decision of the Registrar, namely her decision declining to dispense with security for costs.[5] This Court's review powers under s 61A(2) are expressly limited to ordersmade by a single Judge pursuant to s 61A(1). There is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).1[6] Accordingly, having reviewed the Registrar's decision of 28 September 2012 I uphold it. I dismiss Mr Siemer's application.Solicitors:1 Siemer v Stiassny [2013] NZSC 11 at [4].