Do v Kolsumdet Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicants, Do, sought to have the proceedings against Kolsumdet Pty Ltd reallocated to another judge on the basis of alleged bias. The applicants were pursuing a defamation claim against the respondents, who were the publishers of a blog post that the applicants claimed was defamatory. The applicants' application for recusal was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

The applicants argued that the judge, Justice Bromwich, was biased due to comments he had made in a previous case that was linked to this matter. They sought for the proceedings to be transferred to another judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The respondents countered that the application was an abuse of process and that the judge was not biased. The legal issues before the court were whether the application for recusal was valid and, if so, whether the judge should recuse himself.

The court found that the application for recusal was an abuse of process and that the judge had not acted in a way that demonstrated a real possibility of bias. The court held that the comments made by Justice Bromwich in the previous case were not related to the current proceedings and did not amount to bias. The court further held that the applicants had not established any grounds for the judge to recuse himself. The application for recusal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs. The court also varied some of the orders made by Justice Bromwich in relation to the filing and serving of outlines of evidence and interlocutory applications.