SIEMER v BROWN & ORS CA31/2015 [2015] NZCA 161
The Registrar properly refused to accept the appellants' application for review because rule 7(2) permits review only of decisions made under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 and the challenged decision was made under s 61A(3); accordingly the Registrar's decision is upheld and the appellants' remedy is to seek...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZCA 161
- Parties
- Appellant: Vincent Ross Siemer; Appellant: Janedinsdale Siemer; Respondent: Kevin Stanley Brown & Ors
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Review of Registrar's Decision
- Outcome
- Registrar's decision of 23 March 2015 refusing to accept for filing the appellants' application for review is upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Review of Registrar's Decision, Jurisdiction Under S61 A(1) and S61 A(3), Filing Requirements Under Court of Appeal (civil) Rules 2005 R7(2), Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
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
Janedinsdale Siemer
Appellant
Kevin Stanley Brown & Ors
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of Registrar's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Registrar correctly refused to accept the appellants' application for review for filing
- 2 Whether review under r 7(2) is available only for decisions under s61A(1) and not s61A(3)
- 3 Appropriate remedy where review is not available
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar properly refused to accept the appellants' application for review because rule 7(2) permits review only of decisions made under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 and the challenged decision was made under s 61A(3); accordingly the Registrar's decision is upheld and the appellants' remedy is to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
Registrar's decision of 23 March 2015 refusing to accept for filing the appellants' application for review is upheld.
Orders
- Registrar's decision of 23 March 2015 refusing to accept for filing the appellants' application for review is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SIEMER v BROWN & ORS CA31/2015 [2015] NZCA 161 [12 May 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA31/2015[2015] NZCA 161BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER AND JANEDINSDALE SIEMERAppellantsAND KEVIN STANLEY BROWN & ORSRespondentsCounsel: Appellants in personA M Powell for RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)12 May 2015 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF WILD J[Review of Registrar's decision]The Registrar's decision of 23 March refusing to accept for filing an application for review is upheld.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Pursuant to r 7(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, the appellants sought a review of a judgment I gave on 16 March 2015.1 The appellants filed their application on 23 March.[2] The same day the Registrar refused to accept that review application for filing and returned it to the appellants. The reason given was that review is only available of a decision made under s 61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908. My decision was made under s 61A(3).1 Siemer v Brown [2015] NZCA 69.[3] On 31 March the appellants sought review of the Registrar's decisionrefusing to accept their review application.[4] The Registrar's decision is correct, as at least the appellant Mr V R Siemerwell knows: Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner & Ors [2013] NZSC 112, particularly at [3].[5] Accordingly, having reviewed the Registrar's decision, I uphold it.[6] The appellants' remedy is to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,which I note they did on 31 March.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents