BROWN -v- WADE [No 2] [2012] WASC 159
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 159 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1967/2006 | 4 MAY 2012 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 4/05/12 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Recusal request acceded to | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL BROWN As Executor of the Will of WILLIAM JAMES WADE KATHLEEN IVY WADE As Executor of the Will of WILLIAM JAMES WADE KATHLEEN IVY WADE |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application for costs orders following decision after trial Request trial judge recuse himself on ground of reasonable apprehension of bias Issue of correctness of finding at trial raised by nonparties against whom costs orders sought |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 18 r 14, O 73 r 5 |
Case References: | Bahai v Rashidian [1985] 1 WLR 1337 Brown v Wade [2010] WASC 367 Clarence City Council v Howlin [2010] TASFC 2 Flinn v Flinn [1999] VSCA 134 In the Estate of Langton (1964) P163 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 Osborne v Smith (1960) 105 CLR 153 Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 264 Symphony Group PLC v Hodgson [1994] QB 179 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
KATHLEEN IVY WADE As Executor of the Will of WILLIAM JAMES WADE
First Defendant
KATHLEEN IVY WADE
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application for costs orders following decision after trial - Request trial judge recuse himself on ground of reasonable apprehension of bias - Issue of correctness of finding at trial raised by nonparties against whom costs orders sought
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 18 r 14, O 73 r 5
Result:
Recusal request acceded to
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Dr J J Hockley
First Defendant : Mr S V Forbes
Second Defendant : Mr S V Forbes
Non-parties : Mr J D Maclaurin & Mr P B Dobson
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Dwyer Durack
First Defendant : Mr S V Forbes
Second Defendant : Mr S V Forbes
Non-parties : Hotchkin Hanly
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bahai v Rashidian [1985] 1 WLR 1337
Brown v Wade [2010] WASC 367
Clarence City Council v Howlin [2010] TASFC 2
Flinn v Flinn [1999] VSCA 134
In the Estate of Langton (1964) P163
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Osborne v Smith (1960) 105 CLR 153
Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd v Concrete Pty Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 264
Symphony Group PLC v Hodgson [1994] QB 179
(Page 3)
- SIMMONDS J:
Continue reading Brown v Wade [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Brown v Wade [No 2] [2012] WASC 159
- Case
- [2012] WASC 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Brown v Wade, the matter was before the Federal Court of Australia, with Brown as the appellant and Wade as the respondent. The dispute arose from an application for costs orders following a decision at trial. Brown had requested the trial judge to recuse himself on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias, which the judge denied. Subsequently, Brown sought to have the issue of the correctness of the trial judge's findings raised by non-parties against whom costs orders were sought.
The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge should have recused himself and whether the non-parties' intervention was appropriate. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the request for recusal was made in a timely manner and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of the non-parties' intervention in the costs application and its impact on the trial judge's findings.
The court found that the trial judge should have recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that the request for recusal was made in a timely manner and the grounds for recusal were valid. The court further held that the non-parties' intervention was inappropriate and that it did not affect the trial judge's findings. The court concluded that the trial judge's denial of the recusal request was erroneous, leading to the acceptance of the recusal request.
The court granted the recusal request, and further orders may be made regarding the costs and the reconsideration of the costs application before a different judge.
The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge should have recused himself and whether the non-parties' intervention was appropriate. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the request for recusal was made in a timely manner and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of the non-parties' intervention in the costs application and its impact on the trial judge's findings.
The court found that the trial judge should have recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that the request for recusal was made in a timely manner and the grounds for recusal were valid. The court further held that the non-parties' intervention was inappropriate and that it did not affect the trial judge's findings. The court concluded that the trial judge's denial of the recusal request was erroneous, leading to the acceptance of the recusal request.
The court granted the recusal request, and further orders may be made regarding the costs and the reconsideration of the costs application before a different judge.
Orders
Orders of the court
Recusal request acceded to
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.