Coleman & Hindle and Ors (Disqualification)

Coleman & Hindle and others were involved in a dispute where the grandmother appealed certain orders made by the court. The nature of the dispute involved procedural matters, including the alleged bias of a registrar and the handling of death threats against the registrar. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court. The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the trial judge erred in not substituting the registrar and whether there was perceived bias on the part of the registrar.

The court examined the principles governing the review of interlocutory orders, emphasizing the need for appellate courts to exercise caution in such matters. The court referred to several precedents that outlined the criteria for reviewing such decisions, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the potential for substantial injustice if the appellate court intervenes too readily. The court concluded that while injustice resulting from the order is generally a relevant consideration, it is not the sole determinant. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated an error of principle or a substantial injustice warranting interference with the trial judge’s decision.

The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents and the Independent Children's Lawyer as agreed or assessed. The reasoning focused on the procedural nature of the orders and the appellate court's limited role in reviewing such decisions without clear evidence of error or substantial injustice.