Actron Investments Queensland Pty Limited v D.D.S Project Management Pty Ltd

Actron Investments Queensland Pty Limited, the plaintiff, sought the recusal of Mullins J from the trial of their case against D.D.S Project Management Pty Ltd, the defendant. The case had previously been heard by Mullins J, who had delivered a decision, which was subsequently appealed and remitted to the trial division for further consideration of contributory negligence, proportionate liability, and assessment of damages. The plaintiff argued that Mullins J had pre-judged an issue relating to the quantum of damages in the original reasons for judgment. The Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to consider whether Mullins J should be recused on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a fair-minded lay observer, having the same factual knowledge as the trial judge, would reasonably apprehend that the trial judge might not bring an impartial mind to the bearing on the issue of quantum in the remitted trial. The court examined the reasons for judgment delivered by Mullins J to determine if there was any pre-judgment of the issue relating to quantum.

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to identify a pre-judgment of an issue that was yet to be decided. The reasons for judgment did not demonstrate any bias towards the issue of quantum. The court held that a fair-minded lay observer would not apprehend bias in the reasons for judgment. Consequently, the application for the recusal of Mullins J was dismissed. The court found no basis for the plaintiff’s contention that Mullins J had pre-judged the issue of quantum.

The court ordered that the application for recusal of Mullins J be refused. The case was to proceed before Mullins J without the need for a new trial judge. The reasons for judgment indicated that the court was satisfied that the trial judge would approach the remitted trial impartially, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.