Amos v Wiltshire

The appeal in Amos v Wiltshire involved the appellant challenging an indemnity costs order made by the primary judge. The primary judge had denied the appellant's application for recusal, which was based on an apprehension of bias. The appellant argued that the primary judge's denial of the recusal application, coupled with the imposition of indemnity costs, constituted a denial of procedural fairness. The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal against the indemnity costs order, based on the claim of denial of procedural fairness, required leave to appeal and if leave should be granted despite this requirement.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the assertion of apprehended bias in the context of the appeal against the indemnity costs order should be treated as an appeal against the decision on the grounds of denial of procedural fairness, and whether such an appeal necessitated leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the primary judge's order for indemnity costs was reasonable and consistent with applicable principles, given the broad discretion afforded to trial judges in awarding and assessing costs.

The court found no error in the primary judge's handling of the recusal application and the imposition of the indemnity costs order. The court held that the primary judge's expression of doubt about the appellant's willingness to participate in mediation did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Furthermore, the court emphasised the reluctance of appellate courts to interfere with the exercise of discretion by trial judges in cost assessments. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the standard basis.