Blatchford v Clubley

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1041


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Blatchford & Anor v Clubley & Anor [2015] NSWLEC 1041
Hearing dates:29 January 2015
Date of orders: 29 January 2015
Decision date: 29 January 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Galwey AC
Decision:

Application for recusal refused

Catchwords: APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: J Blatchford and L Bianchi (Applicants)
G Clubley and S Ierace (Respondents)
Representation: First Applicant in person
First Respondent in person
File Number(s):20640 of 2014

EXTEMPORE Judgment

  1. ACTING COMMISSIONER: Mr Blatchford, I have considered your comments and I understand that, of course, you want to ensure that you have a fair hearing, so I will just respond with my comments, which lead me to believe that there is no basis for me to recuse myself and there are no grounds on which there is any basis for actual or apprehended bias.

  2. The reasons for that are that my only relationship with Mr Clubley in the past has been an association on a Standards Australia committee where we worked together on developing a professional Standard for arboriculture, and that was from 2007, perhaps, to 2009 with occasional meetings in Sydney, during which time I lived, as I do now, in Melbourne. We would be in a meeting room with other arborists and other professionals for a day a few times per year during that time.

  3. Since then I continue to live in Melbourne. I have never worked professionally with Mr Clubley in that time. Since then I have not worked with Mr Clubley in that time.

  4. My only work in Sydney is here at the Court. I run a business in Melbourne.

  5. I have not socialised with Mr Clubley, apart from perhaps during that Standards committee time when we had lunch together in a meeting room with other arborists there - that would be my only socialising with Mr Clubley.

  6. I do not think that an ordinary bystander (who has seen what we have done together who would be watching this) would perceive that there is any apprehended bias.

  7. Also, at the previous hearing, I think this all came out. We made this very clear at the previous hearing. You had no objection at that stage and nothing has changed since then, and I have had no relationship with Mr Clubley since that previous hearing - so I just want to assure you of all that.

  8. On those grounds, I will not be recusing myself.

David Galwey

Acting Commissioner

Details
AGLC
Blatchford v Clubley [2015] NSWLEC 1041
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1041
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blatchford v Clubley was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Blatchford, sought to have the judge, Clubley, recused from the proceedings on the basis of perceived bias. The dispute centred on the validity of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of certain terms within it. The plaintiff argued that the judge had shown bias through previous statements and actions, which had created a reasonable apprehension of partiality.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judge had indeed exhibited bias that would warrant recusal and, if so, whether this bias was such that it would lead a reasonable observer to apprehend a partiality in the handling of the case. The court examined the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the judge's prior conduct and statements to determine if they demonstrated any form of bias. The court also considered the principles governing judicial impartiality and the threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court found that the evidence provided by the plaintiff did not support the existence of any bias on the part of the judge. The statements and actions cited by the plaintiff were deemed to be insufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of partiality. The court concluded that the judge's impartiality remained intact and that there were no grounds for recusal. As a result, the application for recusal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for recusal refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.