Rouvinetis v Knoll

[2013] NSWCA 24

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Bias
3. › Apprehension of bias
4. › Waiver
5. › Unrepresented litigant aware of circumstances giving rise to objection
6. › Failure to apply for recusal before or at commencement of trial
7. › Whether right to object waived
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Bias
3. › Apprehension of bias
4. › Characteristics of judge
5. › Religious or ethnic background of judge
6. › Whether membership of religious or ethnic group gives rise to reasonable apprehension of bias
7. › Defendant a judge of same Division as trial judge
1. Appeal
2. › Competency
3. › Compensation less than $100,000
4. › Failure to file affidavit under r 51.22 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
5. › Whether appeal competent as of right
6. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)
1. Torts
2. › Assault and battery
3. › False imprisonment
4. › Detention by security staff
5. › Whether reasonable force used
6. › Factual findings on appeal
7. › Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW)

Quick Take

An unrepresented litigant who is aware of circumstances giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and has had the opportunity to raise the issue but fails to apply for recusal before or at the commencement of trial will be held to have waived the objection. A judge's religious or ethnic background does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and evidence directed to establishing such characteristics is inadmissible.