AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Careri & Ors

(2011) 34 VR 236; [2011] VSCA 425

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts
2. › Judges
3. › Reasonable apprehension of bias
4. › Prejudgment of issues
5. › Review of taxation of costs
6. › Whether remarks by review judge conveyed concluded views on central issue before hearing submissions
7. › Whether refusal of recusal applications without hearing submissions displayed apprehended bias
1. Courts
2. › Judges
3. › Recusal
4. › Procedure on recusal applications
5. › Whether judge must permit party to make submissions before ruling on recusal application
6. › Whether peremptory refusal of recusal application itself gives rise to apprehended bias
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Taxation of costs
4. › Review of taxation
5. › Whether costs 'necessary or proper'
6. › County Court Rules of Procedure in Civil Proceedings 1999 (Vic), r 63A.57, r 63A.29

Quick Take

A judge who announces a decision on a recusal application before permitting counsel to make submissions displays apprehended bias, even if the judge subsequently agrees to hear submissions. Strongly worded and unqualified remarks by a judge early in proceedings, before the judge has read all materials, may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment of the central issue. The cumulative effect of such remarks and the manner of dealing with recusal applications is assessed together. A party is not precluded from making a second recusal application based on fresh grounds merely because the first application was refused.