In the matter of Venroy Pty Limited (Recusal Application)

[2026] NSWSC 932

Supreme Court of NSW

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — defendant’s application for recusal from any further determination in proceedings — where the defendant’s statutory demand was set aside — where the remaining issue concerns costs — allegation of apprehended bias — where fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the question of costs had been pre-determined — where fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that arguments will not be considered on their merits — consideration of extent of Court’s role in relation to litigants in person — application refused

A judge's explanation to a litigant in person of the likely legal position during case management, the ordering of a separate question to facilitate efficient resolution, and robust exchanges about wasted time do not, individually or cumulatively, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias under the Ebner test.
Brief treatment of unmeritorious submissions in ex tempore reasons does not support an inference of pre-determination of a subsequent costs question.
The extent of a court's obligation to ensure an unrepresented litigant does not fail to advance legal arguments remains unsettled, with conflicting Court of Appeal authority (MTH v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 122 and Chalik v Chalik [2025] NSWCA 136) awaiting High Court resolution.