Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Maisano (Recusal Application) [No 12]
Case
•
[2017] VSC 676
•3 November 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Maisano (Recusal Application) [No 12] [2017] VSC 676
[2017] VSC 676
3 November 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd sought an order for the recusal of the acting President of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, on the basis of apprehended bias. The application was brought in the context of a dispute between the parties over building work carried out on residential premises. The application was made to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the acting President had a closed mind and was unable to fairly determine the application, based on his reasons given in an earlier similar application made by a different applicant. The applicant submitted that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case demonstrated a closed mind and a predisposition to dismiss the application, which would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The court considered whether the acting President's reasons in the earlier case generated a reasonable apprehension of bias in the current application. The court noted that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case were not determinative of the current application, and that the court must consider the current application on its own merits. The court further noted that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case did not demonstrate a closed mind or a predisposition to dismiss the current application. The court held that the applicant had not made out a case for recusal, and dismissed the application.
The court held that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case did not generate a reasonable apprehension of bias in the current application, and that the current application must be considered on its own merits. The court further held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the acting President had a closed mind or a predisposition to dismiss the current application. The court held that the applicant had not made out a case for recusal, and dismissed the application. The court did not make any orders as to costs.
The court considered whether the acting President's reasons in the earlier case generated a reasonable apprehension of bias in the current application. The court noted that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case were not determinative of the current application, and that the court must consider the current application on its own merits. The court further noted that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case did not demonstrate a closed mind or a predisposition to dismiss the current application. The court held that the applicant had not made out a case for recusal, and dismissed the application.
The court held that the acting President's reasons in the earlier case did not generate a reasonable apprehension of bias in the current application, and that the current application must be considered on its own merits. The court further held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the acting President had a closed mind or a predisposition to dismiss the current application. The court held that the applicant had not made out a case for recusal, and dismissed the application. The court did not make any orders as to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Apprehended Bias
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Prejudgment
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
VLSB v Kuksal & Ors (Recusal Applications) [2022] VSC 648
Cases Citing This Decision
10
VLSB v Kuksal & Ors (Recusal Applications)
[2022] VSC 648
In the Matter of Kornucopia Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2019] VSC 802
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Redmond
[2018] VSC 458
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Maisano
[2017] VSCA 252
AJH Lawyers Pty Ltd v Careri
[2011] VSCA 425