Collier v Country Women's Association of New South Wales

[2018] NSWCA 36

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. › Actual bias
4. › Recusal application
5. › Whether judge's conduct at prior interlocutory hearing demonstrated prejudgment or lack of impartiality
6. › Whether evidentiary rulings and case management directions constituted actual bias
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Bias
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend judge might not bring impartial mind to resolution of questions
5. › Whether logical connection between complaints and feared departure from impartiality
6. › Whether case management directions by Registrar gave rise to apprehended bias
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Court of Appeal
3. › Review of Registrar's decisions
4. › Nature of review under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 121(3) and UCPR r 49.19
5. › Whether error of law or House v The King error demonstrated
6. › Whether case management orders should be set aside
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Whether special or unusual feature justifying departure from ordinary basis
5. › Whether unreasonable conduct in pursuing groundless allegations warranted indemnity costs
6. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98

Quick Take

A judge raising case management issues about compliance with earlier orders, or suggesting a party take a protective procedural step, does not constitute actual bias in the form of prejudgment. On review of a Registrar's case management orders, the applicant bears the onus of demonstrating error of law, House v The King error, or material change of circumstances. Indemnity costs were refused despite borderline unreasonable conduct where the litigant's misconceived allegations arose from misunderstanding rather than deliberate abuse.