Ruling notes waiver will not necessarily follow even if case engages public interest
A three-justice panel of the New Zealand Supreme Court has declined an application to recall a single justice’s decision upholding the denial of a requested fee waiver, given the applicant’s failure to show his inability to pay the fee.
The attorney-general – the first respondent in Siemer v Attorney-General [2026] NZSC 67 – pursued orders against the applicant under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
On 11 September 2024, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand decided that the attorney‑general, in support of the requested s 166 orders, could adduce court minutes and judgments issued in the applicant’s or his wife’s proceedings.
In November 2024, before the Supreme Court, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the September 2024 admissibility decision. Seeking a fee waiver, he alleged that he had failed to secure legal aid and wholly depended on New Zealand superannuation for his living expenses.
Denying the fee waiver application, the Supreme Court deputy registrar did not consider the applicant wholly dependent on New Zealand superannuation for his living expenses.
The applicant filed a “plea for ancillary declaratory relief,” treated as an application to review the deputy registrar’s decision. He also relied on public interest grounds to lodge a second fee waiver application.
On 20 March 2025, Miller J of the Supreme Court dismissed the application for review after addressing the public interest grounds and finding no inability on the applicant’s part to pay the fee.
The applicant brought an “application for Supreme Court review” of Miller J’s judgment, deemed an application to recall the 20 March 2025 judgment. He also filed an interlocutory application to waive the filing fee on public interest grounds.
On 19 August 2025, Miller J dismissed the application for the reasons provided in the prior judgment. Noting that the application asserted no new matters, Miller J directed the registrar to reject any additional recall applications in this proceeding.
The applicant initiated an “Interlocutory application ... for (1) disqualification of Miller J with cause, and (2) a definitive ruling on fee waiver on genuine public interest grounds” dated 9 February 2026.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand’s three-judge panel dismissed the February 2026 document, which it treated essentially as an application to recall Miller J’s March 2025 judgment.
The panel noted that the registrar could have declined to accept the document for filing in accordance with Miller J’s direction.
However, the panel addressed whether a recall was appropriate. The panel considered the application an attempt to re‑litigate the merits, which was not a basis for a recall.
Assuming the matter was one of genuine public interest, the panel stressed that a fee waiver would not necessarily follow. The panel saw no error in Miller J’s conclusion that the proceeding would continue without a fee waiver.
The panel noted that the applicant based his application to disqualify Miller J on a transcript of a June 2012 in‑chambers discussion before a judge of the High Court of New Zealand.
The discussion concerned a previous application brought on the attorney‑general’s behalf under the predecessor provision to s 166, which the applicant challenged via a strike-out application. On the transcript’s face, the panel saw no apparent basis for disqualification for cause.
