Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Oakley Thompson & Co Pty Ltd

[2018] VSCA 33

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judges
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Application to set aside statutory demand
4. › Interchanges between judge and counsel during hearing
5. › Whether expressions of impatience and loss of patience demonstrated bias
6. › Whether reference to duties of counsel in reasons demonstrated bias
7. › Whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend judge might not bring impartial mind to resolution
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Reasons and orders
3. › Mode of delivery
4. › Reasons and orders delivered to parties via email
5. › Orders not pronounced in open court
6. › Whether mode of delivery rendered orders of superior court a nullity
7. › Distinction between superior courts and statutory courts
8. › Open justice principle
1. Corporations
2. › Statutory demands
3. › Application to set aside statutory demand
4. › Time for compliance
5. › Whether failure to deliver orders in open court deprived applicant of opportunity to seek extension of time
6. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459C, 459F, 459G, 459H, 459J

Quick Take

Delivery of reasons and orders by email, rather than pronouncement in open court, does not render orders of a superior court a nullity, though announcement in open court remains the appropriate course for most final and important interlocutory orders. The distinction between superior courts and statutory courts on this point is confirmed. A judge's expressions of impatience and loss of patience with counsel, including characterising arguments as 'nonsense' and stating the law is 'unarguable', do not constitute apprehended bias where assessed in the context of counsel's own rudeness and where counsel was given a full opportunity to make submissions.