Bhagat v Peter Young and 12 Ors
[2002] NSWSC 321
•26 March 2002
CITATION: BHAGAT v PETER YOUNG & 12 ORS [2002] NSWSC 321 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20095/02 HEARING DATE(S): 25 March 2002, 26 March 2002 JUDGMENT DATE: 26 March 2002 PARTIES :
Hari Bhaghat (Plaintiff)
v
Peter Young (First Defendant)
Global Custodians Ltd (ACN 003 588 378) (Second Defendant)
John Healey Speight and Jessee Barrie Marr Speight (Third Defendant)
Archie Greenlees and Norma Patricia Greenlees (Fourth Defendant)
David O'Bryen (Fifth Defendant)
Michael Wilkins (Sixth Defendant)
Robin Margo (Seventh Defendant)
Holding Redlich (Eighth Defendant)
Harold Werksman (Ninth Defendant)
Jeffrey Flick (Tenth Defendant)
Anthony Spencer (Eleventh Defendant)JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1
COUNSEL : Plaintiff in person
Mr T H Barrett (First Defendant)
Mr R F Margo SC (Second to Fourth Defendants, Eighth to Tenth Defendants)
Mr B J Preston SC (Fifth & Sixth Defendants)SOLICITORS: Plaintiff in person
I V Knight (First Defendant)
Holding Redlich (Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth & Tenth Defendants)
Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Fifth & Sixth Defendants)
CATCHWORDS: Disqualification for bias - litigation against judge and other defendants - application by a judge being heard before applications by other defendants who seek such procedure - objection by respondent to all applications - procedural reasons for adopting proposed order - disqualification refused DECISION: See paragraph 4
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADAMS J
TUESDAY 26 MARCH 2002
20816/01 - BHAGAT AS A BENEFICIARY OF THE MERIDIAN INVEST TRUST & SHAREHOLDER OF TYNDALL AUST LTD & GUINNESS PEAT GROUP PLC v JOHN WILLIAM MURPHY AS TRUSTEE & UNITHOLDER OF THE MERIDIAN SUB-TRUSTS & ORS & 22 ORS
20817/01 – BHAGAT v GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LTD & 13 ORS
20865/01 – BHAGAT AS A SHAREHOLDER OF TYNDALL AUST LTD & GUINNESS PEAT GROUP PLC & A BENEFICIARY OF THE MERIDIAN INVEST TRUST v ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCE LIFE ASSURANCE AUSTRALIA LTD & 3 ORS
20095/02 – BHAGAT v PETER YOUNG & 12 ORS
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: Mr Bhagat has made what I take to be an application that I should disqualify myself for either apprehended or actual bias in respect of hearing the notices of motion which seek to dismiss or strike out his statements of claim against Peter Young who is a Judge of this Court.
2 The two bases for this application are, first, that I am a judge in this Court, as is Mr Justice Young. The second basis is that I have shown preference by dealing first with the applications made on behalf of Mr Justice Young, as distinct from the other applications seeking the dismissal of the proceedings against other defendants, which Mr Bhagat says are no different in substance.
3 There are two reasons why I have decided to deal with the applications so far as they affect Justice Young first. The first of them is that a notice of motion is before me in that respect and that the other parties seek to defer their arguments or seek to defer consideration of their applications until that which involves Mr Justice Young is concluded. The reasons essentially given are that it is convenient that these matters be dealt with in the Equity Division of this Court, having regard to the history of the litigation and that it would facilitate that process if the proceedings against Mr Justice Young were decided. If decided in his favour then it follows that there are no difficulties in relation to a judge of the Equity Division continuing to case manage the litigation. If decided against him certain things follow as to the appropriateness of the matters being dealt with in the Equity Division or at least, of course, by Mr Justice Young. Those seem to me to be sensible procedural reasons which justify my hearing this application before the other applications.
4 I am satisfied that no reasonable observer could or might think that, in dealing with the notices of motion in the order which I have indicated, the Court is in any way biased against Mr Bhagat or pre-judging the issues in the case. Accordingly, the application that I should disqualify myself is rejected.
0
0
0