VINCENT ROSS SIEMER [2022] NZSC 73

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER [2022] NZSC 73 [10 June 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC MA 7/2022[2022] NZSC 73IN THE MATTER OF Applications by VINCENT ROSS SIEMERfor review of the decisions of the RegistrarJudgment: 10 June 2022JUDGMENT OF O'REGAN JThe applications for review are dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The Registrar has referred to me three matters on which the applicantchallenges her decisions and either explicitly or implicitly seeks review of thedecisions under s 82(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the challenged decisions).I have reviewed the challenged decisions. I dismiss the applications for review inrelation to all three of them. My reasons follow.[2] The first challenged decision relates to an application by the applicant underr 8 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules) for acopy of the formal Court record in SC 80/2015 Greer v Smith & Harrison.1[3] There is an extensive history to this application, summarised in a minute of theCourt dated 25 November 2016 (the 2016 minute). At the end of that minute, theCourt said:[3] One aspect of the jurisdiction of the Court which is now engaged isits entitlement to deal with abuse of its processes. We say this given:1 The judgment for this case was Greer v Smith [2015] NZSC 136.(a) the repeated in-substance challenges to the judgment of18 December 2015 which come on top of the twounsuccessful recall applications;(b) the absence of any other apparent point to Mr Siemer's recentconduct; and(c) Mr Siemer's persistence in advancing s 28(3) argumentswhich have previously been rejected by us.[4] Accordingly, we direct the Registrar not to accept for filing any furtherapplication by Mr Siemer by way of, or relating to:(a) his application for access to Mr Greer's application for leaveto appeal;(b) challenge, direct or indirect, to the judgments of this Court of18 December 2015, 10 February 2016 or 10 March 2016;(c) the minutes of 20 October 2015, 28 October 2016 or9 November 2016; or(d) this minute.[4] Despite that direction, the applicant made a further application in 2019.2[5] The application to which the first challenged decision responded was vexatiousand an abuse of the Court's process. The Registrar was indulging the applicant byaccepting it and responding to it, given the direction made at [4] of the 2016 minute.[6] She provided the applicant with a link to the judgments on the file, but theapplicant argued that her response was deficient because she did not provide a copy ofan index with her emailed reply. The Registrar explained that the index is an index ofall cases rather than any individual case, and indicated that it could be inspected duringoffice hours. The right under r 8 of the Rules is to access (as that term is defined inthe Rules) the formal court record relating to a civil proceeding. In this case, "index"means the entry in the index relating to the Greer v Smith & Harrison file. Theinformation relating to that proceeding that is contained in the index is duplicated onthe Courts of New Zealand website so is already publicly available. I see no error inthe Registrar's decision.2 Re Siemer [2019] NZSC 52.[7] The second challenged decision also relates to Greer v Smith. The applicantclaimed he was entitled to access documents from the file because he was a party toSC 80/2015 Greer v Smith & Harrison. This was because the 2016 minute dealingwith the applicant's 2016 applications in relation to the Greer v Smith & Harrison fileused the intituling of the Greer v Smith judgment. The Registrar advised that the onlyparties to Greer v Smith were Mr Greer, Mr Smith and Mr Harrison: the applicant didnot become a party to Greer v Smith by the making of a request for access to the filefor that case. That is undoubtedly correct.[8] The third challenged decision is essentially a subset of the first one. Theapplicant continues to argue that the Registrar is failing to comply with the Rules bynot providing an index of the file for both SC 80/2015 Greer v Smith & Harrison andSC 136/2021 Siemer v Auckland High Court. The Registrar's explanation is set outabove. It is correct. As noted above, the information contained in the Court's globalindex in relation to these files is duplicated on the Courts of New Zealand website.[9] I reiterate that no further applications from the applicant that relate in any wayto Greer v Smith or to the present applications should be accepted.