Chan v Harris

The applicant, Yau Hang Chan, filed an application for preliminary discovery against the respondent, Alan Harris, an employee of Catholic Care Sydney, in proceedings NSD538/2010. Mr Chan claimed that a report prepared by Local Employment and Training Solutions (LETS) and provided to Centrelink contained fraudulent or defamatory allegations concerning him and that such allegations were part of a conspiracy to injure him. The application was heard by Cowdroy J. Mr Chan made an application for the judge to disqualify himself from hearing the matter, claiming that the listing of the current matter before the same judge who made a determination in a previous proceeding, NSD426/2009, was the result of a conspiracy perpetrated by persons unknown. The Court dismissed the application for disqualification, finding that there were no grounds for disqualification. The Court held that there was no reasonable apprehension that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge was required to decide. The Court held that Mr Chan’s understanding of the doctrine of apprehended bias was misconceived. The Court held that no factual determination had been made in NSD426/2009 upon which Mr Chan based his claim for disqualification and that no reasonable ground of apprehended bias existed. Since no other basis existed for disqualification, the application for disqualification was refused. The Court further found that Mr Chan’s application for leave to issue subpoenas, his application for a copy of the transcript of proceedings and his application for a declaration that he was not liable for the costs of certain parties were all without merit and were refused.