Legal Research
Cases
Brown v DML Resources

Brown v DML Resources

Case [2001] NSWSC 250 29 March 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Brown v DML Resources [2001] NSWSC 250

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3830/00

HEARING DATE(S): 29 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 March 2001

PARTIES :

Martin Russell Brown
and Timothy James Cuming (P & R)
DML Resources Pty Limited (In liquidation) (D1)
DML Resources (WA) Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (D2)
BP Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (A)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : A Carney (Sol) (A)
C R C Newlinds (P & R)

SOLICITORS: Carneys, Lawyers (A)
Kemp Strang (P & R)

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - apprehended bias by judge - whether judge who makes ex parte order with leave to affected party to apply to set it aside should disqualify himself from hearing the application.

CASES CITED: Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 411
Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 74 ALJR 1380
Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth (No 2) (1998) 72 ALJR 1334
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Company Pty Limited (1953) 88 CLR 100
R v Commonwealth Conciliation & Arbitration Commission ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546
R v Watson ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
Re JRL ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568

DECISION: Judge did not disqualify himself.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

THURSDAY 29 MARCH 2001

3830/00 - MARTIN RUSSELL BROWN & 1 OR v D M L RESOURCES PTY LIMITED (IN LIQ) & 1 OR
JUDGMENT (ex tempore; revised 2 April 2001)

1 HIS HONOUR: On 4 September 2000 the plaintiff applied to this Court seeking an extension of time in which to bring proceedings to challenge certain transactions as unfair and voidable preferences. The application came before me in the Corporations List. I entertained it as an application ex parte for reasons advanced by counsel but, in view of the fact that the orders that I was asked to make would affect creditors who may wish to appear and make submissions, I made provisions in the orders to ensure that they were served and given an opportunity to appear. I granted the extension of time sought by the plaintiff under s 588FF(3)(b) of the Corporations Law, but I directed the plaintiffs to serve copies of the originating process and affidavit, and my orders, on a number of corporations including BP Australia Holdings Limited. I granted those corporations liberty to file and serve an application to set aside my orders within 28 days. BP availed itself of that leave within the time specified.

2 On 18 October 2000 the solicitors for the plaintiffs wrote to the solicitors for BP saying, amongst other things, that in their view BP's application should be listed before me for directions and ultimate determination. They wrote a further letter on 24 October 2000 proposing that BP's application would be listed before the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brown v DML Resources

Details

AGLC: Brown v DML Resources [2001] NSWSC 250
Case: [2001] NSWSC 250
Decision Date: 29 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brown v DML Resources, the plaintiff, Mr. Brown, contested a decision made by the defendant, DML Resources, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on whether an ex parte order issued by a judge should be set aside due to potential bias. The plaintiff argued that the judge's involvement in making the ex parte order and subsequently granting leave for the plaintiff to apply to set it aside constituted apprehended bias, warranting the judge's disqualification from hearing the application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a judge who issues an ex parte order, with leave to the affected party to apply to set it aside, should recuse themselves from hearing the subsequent application. The court had to determine whether such a sequence of actions by the judge would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This required careful consideration of the principles surrounding judicial impartiality and the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings.

The court examined the relevant legal principles and concluded that the judge's actions did not necessarily lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court reasoned that the issuance of an ex parte order and the subsequent granting of leave to apply to set it aside were procedural steps that did not inherently imply bias. The court emphasised that the mere fact that a judge was involved in both stages of the process did not automatically disqualify them from hearing the application. The court found that the judge's impartiality could be preserved if there was no pre-existing bias and the judge maintained an open mind when considering the application. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to disqualify the judge.

The court ordered that the application to disqualify the judge was dismissed, and the ex parte order remained in effect pending further consideration on the merits of the case.

Orders