COURTS AND JUDGES — Bias — application for recusal of two judges on basis of apprehended bias — no apprehended bias established
APPEALS — Procedure — application to reopen appeal after judgment reserved to raise new grounds of appeal and make supplementary submissions — no exceptional circumstances to justify application — while appellant was unrepresented the Court must ensure fairness for all parties — application refused
Quick Take
1A presiding judge who asks a party to clarify whether a bias complaint is being raised, and to particularise it, is not exhibiting bias; such questioning serves procedural fairness by identifying the issues in dispute. Judicial questioning that tests a party's factual propositions during oral argument does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Telling a self-represented litigant that unfounded bias allegations would attract regulatory referral if made by a practitioner is likewise not a disqualifying factor.
2Allegations of actual or apprehended bias must be made distinctly and clearly because they are serious, must be determined first on appeal, and if upheld generally require a new trial (Concrete; Oakey Coal).
3Amending a notice of appeal, or receiving further submissions, after the hearing and after judgment has been reserved will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, assessed under the case management principles in ss 56-60 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). A litigant's self-represented status does not displace the requirement of fairness to the opposing party, who is entitled to meet the case as pleaded.
Case Details
Citation[2026] NSWCA 236
CourtNSWCA
JurisdictionNew South Wales
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.
