The Court refused a recusal application for apprehended bias, holding that a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend partiality from the judge's comments during trial. The judge's remarks about the plaintiff's reliability, encouragement to narrow issues, reminders about barristers' ethical obligations under r 65 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015, and adverse evidentiary rulings were, in context, proper exercises of the judicial function — directing counsel to issues requiring attention, facilitating efficient resolution under the Civil Procedure Act 2010, and ensuring standards of decency and fairness. Tentative expressions of view and case management interventions do not give rise to apprehended bias where the judge remains willing to listen and be persuaded.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.