Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd v Oakley Thompson & Co Pty Ltd

Bodycorp Repairers Pty Ltd sought special leave to appeal a decision of President Maxwell of the Court of Appeal of Victoria. The dispute concerned an application by Bodycorp to have its appeal accepted for filing by the Court of Appeal registry, which had initially refused to receive it. Bodycorp contended that President Maxwell erred in refusing its application, arguing that he should have recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the process by which the application was dealt with lacked procedural fairness.

The High Court was required to determine whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of President Maxwell, and whether Bodycorp was denied procedural fairness in the proceedings before him. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether Bodycorp had a sufficient opportunity to object to President Maxwell hearing the matter or to present evidence and submissions regarding his potential bias. The court also had to consider whether the Court of Appeal possessed the inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own orders in circumstances of a denial of natural justice, and whether such circumstances existed in this case.

The applicant argued that no notice was given that President Maxwell would hear the application, nor was there an opportunity to object or file evidence to support a recusal application. It was submitted that the matter was treated as an application for a direction under rule 64.43(5) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, and that notice should have been provided. Furthermore, Bodycorp asserted that President Maxwell was aware of a long association with the applicant and had made comments suggesting it would be inappropriate for him to engage with them, which should have prompted submissions on whether he should hear the matter. The applicant also relied on affidavit evidence suggesting a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The High Court ultimately refused special leave to appeal. The court considered that the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and bias had not demonstrated a sufficient prospect of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court noted that the applicant had previously sought special leave to appeal the original Court of Appeal decision on similar grounds and that this application was essentially seeking to re-litigate those issues.