Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No 11)

The case before the court involved a dispute between Bolitho and Banksia Securities Limited. Bolitho sought the recusal of the trial judge, arguing that the judge's statements during the hearing gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Specifically, Bolitho took issue with comments made by the trial judge regarding whether overarching obligations had been breached by a non-party in the context of an inquiry initiated by the court on its own motion. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by the trial judge during the hearing were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and whether the trial judge should have recused themselves. The court was required to consider the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine whether the trial judge's conduct warranted recusal.

The court found that the statements made by the trial judge did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 9.06. The court held that the trial judge's comments were made in the context of an inquiry initiated by the court on its own motion, and the comments did not indicate any prejudgment or bias on the part of the trial judge. The court also found that the subsequent reasons for decision published and orders pronounced by the trial judge did not indicate any bias.

The court dismissed Bolitho's application for recusal and ordered that the non-party be joined as a party to the proceedings and that a directions hearing be held.