Wellington, March 3 NZPA - The Supreme Court has dismissed an application from Auckland-based American businessman Vince Siemer opposing the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias sitting on an appeal against his jail sentence.

In 2008 Siemer was sentenced to six months' jail for contempt of court for failing to remove defamatory material from his website about Vector chairman Michael Stiassny. Later that year the High Court ordered Siemer to pay Mr Stiassny $920,000 for defamatory comments stretching back to 2005.

Mr Stiassny was appointed as a receiver of Siemer's firm, Paragon Services, in July 2001.

Siemer was granted bail, pending an appeal against his sentence due to be heard in the Supreme Court. He then applied for an order that the Chief Justice not sit on his appeal, because Dame Sian's husband Hugh Fletcher is a director of the Vector board chaired by Mr Stiassny.

Following the hearing on that application on Friday, the written judgment of Supreme Court Justices Peter Blanchard and John McGrath described Siemer's concerns as "highly speculative".

"The Chief Justice has advised the parties that she was once introduced to Mr Stiassny but has not had other contact with him," Justices Blanchard and McGrath said.

Siemer's counsel Robert Lithgow QC told the Supreme Court that Mr Stiassny led a controversial capital restructuring of Vector which also involved restructuring the board and the departure of a number of board members who were critical of him. Mr Fletcher "chose to join or remain on the board" and Mr Lithgow argued that their common membership of the board in those circumstances poses apparent bias concerns.

He said it was possible that Mr Fletcher was beholden to Mr Stiassny, who might be in a position to cause Mr Fletcher to lose his position on the board along with annual director's fees.

"No factual material is before the court providing a basis for these broader assertions," the judgment says.

Vector itself had no interest at all in the outcome of the appeal, it adds.

"Mr Stiassny has an interest, but the nature of his association with Mr Fletcher, as directors of the same company, would not in the eyes of the fair minded observer of itself give rise to a reasonable concern over bias of the judge who happens to be married to Mr Fletcher."

The application was dismissed with no order for costs.