de Groot v Nominal Defendant

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the plaintiff, de Groot, against the Nominal Defendant. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for increased damages following a previous judgment. The plaintiff sought to appeal an earlier decision, and the competency of this appeal, particularly in relation to the appealable amount, was a central issue.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the appeal was competent given the amount of damages claimed, the appropriateness of striking out the notice of appeal due to prolixity and scandalous allegations of actual bias against the trial judge, and whether security for costs should be ordered against an impecunious appellant in a personal injury case. The court also had to consider the proper procedure for alleging actual bias of a judge.

Handley JA found that the appeal was competent as the plaintiff was claiming increased damages exceeding the appealable amount. However, the notice of appeal was struck out because it was prolix and contained allegations of actual bias expressed in scandalous terms, which had been filed without the appellant's express instructions. The court also determined that no order for security for costs would be made, despite the appellant's impecuniosity, given the nature of the case. Leave was granted to file a further notice of appeal within 28 days.