FERRIER HODGSON And Anor V SIEMER
& Ors HC AK CIV2005-404-1808 [13 Dec 05]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
BETWEEN FERRIER HODGSON
AND MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY
AND VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
AND PARAGON SERVICES LIMITED
AND OGGI ADVERTISING LTD
On 13 December 2005, the Court of Appeal panel headed by Justice Robert Chambers ruled:
1) To dismiss Mr. Siemer’s appeal to have the injunction revoked that prohibited his speaking out against Mr. Stiassny.
2) In doing so, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Siemer had forfeited his right to free speech more than 4 years earlier when
he signed an agreement with Mr. Stiassny. This agreement required Siemer to not speak of his receivership experiences with Mr.
Stiassny and this contract was a condition imposed by Mr. Stiassny before he would return company assets to Mr. Siemer – this
after Justice Hammond of the High Court had ruled that Mr. Stiassny’s receivership of Mr. Siemer’s company had been revoked.
3) In upholding the injunction on a contractual basis, the Court of Appeal was introducing a new premise for the injunction.
Neither the plaintiff nor defendant had dealt with this issue in their submissions to the High Court.
4) On this, the Court of Appeal specifically stated:
“Mr. Henry, for the Siemer interests, raised a technical point as to whether the Stiassny interests could rely on the contract cause of
action, given that the Stiassny interests had not filed a memorandum under r 33 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, advising
that they intended to support the decision appealed against on other grounds.
"We do not think there is anything in this point for two reasons. First, it is not absolutely clear that Ellen France J did find against
the Stiassny interests on the contract cause of action. She said that the Stiassny interests had “clearly shown there is a serious
question to be argued” on the contract cause of action: at . She appears to have considered on balance of convenience
grounds, that no wider injunction was required than that which she had already determined to give on the defamation cause of
action. That is not to say that she would not have given an injunction on this cause of action if it stood alone…
"Secondly, in any event, this court’s powers on an appeal are broad: Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules, r 48.”
5) The court also ruled that on Balance of Convenience, the risk to Stiassny’s reputation outweighs Mr. Siemer’s rights to
free speech, stating
“The only detriment will be Mr. Siemer will not be able to comment further on Mr. Stiassny’s conduct pending trial. We do not
consider that is a particular detriment to Mr. Siemer in the circumstances of this case.”
6) The court concluded by finding that the defamation cause of action raised some difficult issues in support of an injunction,
but that its finding of support for the injunction on other basis is a debate that need not occur in this matter
Everyone can make a positive difference with a little effort.
“I AM LOYAL TO JUSTICE”
Three pillars of the movement for Judicial reform are:
1) COURT PROCEEDINGS MUST BE TRANSPARENT – Hearings in the New Zealand High Court must be recorded & on the
record to prevent misrepresentations & distortions in the official record of proceedings. Astonishingly, current court protocol
2) JUDGES MUST RULE ACCORDING TO LAW – Many New Zealand judges are exercising their broad powers to make rulings
that are exceptions to established law, with the effect of setting dangerous precedents, protecting favoured litigants and denying
justice to many. Since the Privy Council in England ceased being an appeal option to the public, this problem has escalated.
3) JUDGES MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS – Currently there is no effective mechanism for disciplining and
removing judges who are incompetent or who make rulings that violate the fundamental principles of a civilized society governed by
the rule of equitable law. Understandably, this has created an environment where judges are allowed to indulge their base
predilections. In the Auckland High Court alone, judges have ruled in favour of family members and close associates without even
disclosing their relationship, or ruled that some litigants are not entitled to rights afforded by the most basic laws – all without any
reprimand. Moreover, fellow judges are far too prepared to conceal their colleagues’ misconduct in order to prevent a scandal from
A CITIZEN CAN SHOW NO GREATER RESPECT FOR THE LAW THAN A SHOW OF PEACEFUL CONTEMPT FOR A JUDGE’S
PERVERSION OF IT
While all litigants swear to tell the whole truth in Court, telling the whole truth is rarely anything but a detriment to the professional
success of a legal advocate (i.e. lawyer). And as we all know, lawyers are not required to tell the truth in court. When you realize a
judge is little more than lawyer with influential friends who is no longer accountable to anyone, it is little wonder that many judges
abuse the public trust and pervert laws to assist their friends. The public can no longer allow this abuse of integrity and the public
trust to be conducted in secret court sessions.
In 2006 alone:
1) The Australian Federal Court refused to extradite men to New Zealand to stand trial, stating pointedly the real concern is
they would not get a fair trial here. Again, what does it say when New Zealand's closest ally says this about our justice system?
2) The public found out that damaging evidence concerning the alleged police rapists of Louise Nicholas was suppressed by
the Court and kept from the jury. Conscientious citizens in Wellington are being prosecuted for divulging this information publicly.
3) Judge Sargisson of the Auckland High Court ruled “Given that suspects in a negligent (police) investigation are owed no duty
of care, neither, therefore is Mr. Gxxxxx.” This ruling was in a case where the police had broken into Mr. Gxxxx’s home without a
warrant, assaulted him, arrested and jailed him and charged him with a crime he never committed – a charge the police later
dropped after they found the real perpetrator. (We wonder whether Ms. Sargisson would find such unconscionable breaches of law
by police as acceptable if her home was the one broken into by the police unlawfully, herself beaten up and arrested wrongfully in
her own home and her family the one having to incur the expense and anguish of what she euphemistically labels “a negligent
4) A jury found Richard Sturm guilty of charges of drugging and sexual violation after a mistrial and year delay because Judge
Robert Chamber’s acknowledged misconduct in the first trial resulted in a mistrial.
The Auckland High Court is like a Country Club run by Masons, where most of the judges are either related to one another or run in
the same close-knit circle
EXAMPLES in this very Court: (1) judge Judy Potter ruled in favour of her brother-in-law in proceedings without disclosing her
relationship. When opposing counsel found this out later & filed a judicial complaint concerning her conduct he was rebuffed. (2)
judge Graham Lang (a former insolvency lawyer) ruled that Insolvency accountant Michael Stiassny was not required to number his
discovery. When the plaintiffs objected, Judge Lang chastised the plaintiffs for increasing costs – costs that he then awarded to
Stiassny! The plaintiffs’ formal appeal against this Lang judgment inexplicably and immediately went missing from the Court file. A
year later the appeal had yet to be set for a hearing despite numerous requests by the appellants. judge Hugh Williams refused to
delay the trial date at the same time he was ignoring the appeal (there was never a question that the appeal was legally and
factually valid). (3) judge Ellen France contravened accepted laws in granting Courtier Michael Stiassny an injunction against an
Auckland businessman. When this judgment was appealed, judge Robert Chambers (whose own misconduct in undermining the
Crown’s case caused a mistrial in the Phillip Sturm drugging and sexual violation trial) upheld the injunction on totally new grounds
not argued by either party – and then he defended Ellen France’s actions!
30/8/06 BAD NEWS FOR THE CONSUMERS AND TRUST BENEFICIARIES
Trustees Warren Kyd and Karen Sherry have left their mark on the Auckland Energy Consumers Trust in the last term. These two
have led the charge on Vector's massive accumulation of debt, the questionable purchase of NGC by Vector, the failure to disclose
financials to the public (guess why) and the 24.9% public share offering that made Chairman Michael Stiassny a wealthier man but
conversely saw the consumers and beneficiaries suffer. Meanwhile, the Commerce Commission came down hard on overcharging by
Vector, and the share price keeps sinking. These two have a lot to be proud of. That is, if you talk to them. Where others in their
shoes would attempt to fade into the sunset before their breach of public trust and mismanagement became apparent - these two are
running for re-election!
By all accounts, these two are like oil and water. Kyd is the old, shiftless, somewhat dim-witted, National party old-guard who falls asleep
at meetings; Sherry is the ambitious, cunning, former Labour party siren who is convinced her 85 kg frame is irresistible to men. But,
again like water and oil, all these two do when they get together is make a mess. The result is not fit for consumption or combustion. As
the Auckland Energy Consumers Trust election draws near (October 2006) we will be providing more detail as to how these two have
worked in concert with Michael Stiassny to con the public into believing that Vector is a $5 Billion company and that the financial health
of Vector has improved despite firm evidence that it is being run into the ground and that the public have been deceived. For those
wanting further background, please click on Fleecing Vector Energy.
The following is a summation of a judgement of the Court of Appeal that was written by
Justice Robert Chambers. Members of the public may remember Justice Chambers
as the judge who caused a mistrial in the Richard Sturm drugging and sexual violation
case last year when he inappropriately told the jury to essentially disregard the
allegations made by the Crown Prosecutor because his definition of the words used
were different from the prosecutor. Despite this judicial misconduct that caused great
and unnecessary expense to the taxpayer and the victims, Mr. Sturm was eventually
found guilty in a replacement trial (away from Chambers).
In this matter (left), Robert Chambers admitted to a close relationship with Stiassny's
"office manager". However, this disclosure did not apparently cause him hesitation in
coming up with a new reason to protect Stiassny from criticism - on the premise that
Stiassny's convenience is more important than the Bill of Rights Act of New Zealand.
DATELINE 2006 (AFTER THESE SCREW-UPS BY CHAMBERS & OTHER JUDGES)
AUSTRALIAN COURTS REFUSED TO EXTRADITE DEFENDANTS TO NEW ZEALAND
- SAYING POINTEDLY THAT THE REAL CONCERN IS THAT THEY WOULD NOT GET
A FAIR TRIAL HERE. What does it say when NZ's closest ally says this about our