Chin v Thies

[2010] WASCA 230

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Appeal against interlocutory order for security for costs
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of success
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 25 r 2(g)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Leave to appeal interlocutory decisions
4. › Appellant's case defective
5. › Non-compliance with Court of Appeal Rules
6. › Whether appeal should be dismissed
7. › Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 32(4), r 32(5), r 43(2)(g)(i), r 43(2)(g)(ii)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Application for disqualification of judge
4. › Whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend bias
5. › No basis for apprehension established

Quick Take

An appellant's case that is convoluted, non-compliant with the Court of Appeal Rules, and contains grounds directed to irrelevant decisions will result in refusal of leave to appeal, even where the appellant is a legal practitioner and has been given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiencies.

Case Details

Citation[2010] WASCA 230

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by2

2012The Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court v ChinWASC 7
2011Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western AustraliaWASCA 110

Relies on5

2010Thies v ChinWASC 111
2008Re Michelides; Ex Parte ChinWASC 256
2000Johnson v JohnsonHCA 48
and 2 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in