AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Careri

AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision of a judge who had reviewed the taxation of costs in a case between the parties. The appellants argued that the review judge had shown a reasonable apprehension of bias by refusing to recuse himself from the review despite an application being made by the appellants. Additionally, the appellants claimed that the judge had prejudged issues in the review before the appellants had the opportunity to make their submissions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the review judge had displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias, and whether he had prejudged issues in the review. The court had to consider the principles of judicial impartiality and whether the judge's conduct was such that a reasonable observer might think that the judge could not approach the case with an open mind. The court also had to consider whether the judge's actions amounted to a prejudgment of issues, and whether this was an error of law that warranted an appeal.

The court found that the review judge had displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias by refusing to recuse himself before the appellants' counsel could make submissions. The court held that the judge's conduct in refusing the recusal application was such that it gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the judge could not approach the review with an open mind. Additionally, the court found that the judge had prejudged issues in the review before the appellants had the opportunity to make their submissions, which was an error of law. The court held that the judge's actions amounted to a prejudgment of issues, which warranted an appeal.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the review judge, and remitted the matter for review by a differently constituted review judge. The court held that the error of law committed by the review judge was such that it could not be remedied by a costs order, and that the appeal should be allowed in the interests of justice. The court also held that the review judge's conduct in refusing the second recusal application without permitting the appellants' counsel to make submissions was a further error of law that warranted an appeal. The court allowed the appeal and made the orders it considered appropriate.