Legal Research
Cases
Donaldson v Nolan [No 2]

Donaldson v Nolan [No 2]

Case [2015] WASC 158 5 May 2015

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

Recusal of Judges

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: DONALDSON -v- NOLAN [No 2] [2015] WASC 158

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 5 MAY 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 2867 of 2013

BETWEEN: JOHN RAWSON DONALDSON
Plaintiff
AND
JEFFREY RAYMOND NOLAN as Executor of the Estate of JOHN WAYNE DONALDSON
First Defendant
JEMMA LOUISE DONALDSON
Second Defendant
THOMAS DEREK DONALDSON
Third Defendant
ROSANNE DONALDSON
Fourth Defendant
GREGORY BRENT DONALDSON
Fifth Defendant
VANESSA DONALDSON
Sixth Defendant
JACQUELINE DONALDSON
Seventh Defendant
VALERIE DOREEN DONALDSON
Eighth Defendant
MAITLAND GERALD DONALDSON
Ninth Defendant
DAVID TAYLOR
Tenth Defendant
SILVER CHAIN NURSING ASSOCIATION INC
Eleventh Defendant
ROBIN BRAZIL DONALDSON
Twelfth Defendant
JENNIFER LOUISE BROWNING
Thirteenth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2865 of 2013

BETWEEN :JOHN RAWSON DONALDSON
Plaintiff
AND
JEFFREY RAYMOND NOLAN as Executor of the Estate of JOHN WAYNE DONALDSON
First Defendant
JEMMA LOUISE DONALDSON
Second Defendant
THOMAS DEREK DONALDSON
Third Defendant
ROSANNE DONALDSON
Fourth Defendant
GREGORY BRENT DONALDSON
Fifth Defendant
VANESSA DONALDSON
Sixth Defendant
JACQUELINE DONALDSON
Seventh Defendant
VALERIE DOREEN ROBERTS
Eighth Defendant
MAITLAND GERALD DONALDSON
Ninth Defendant
DAVID TAYLOR
Tenth Defendant
SILVER CHAIN NURSING ASSOCIATION INC
Eleventh Defendant
ROBIN BRAZIL DONALDSON
Twelfth Defendant
JENNIFER LOUISE BROWNING
Thirteenth Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 1461 of 2015

BETWEEN :JOHN RAWSON DONALDSON
Plaintiff
AND
SUFFOLK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Recusal application - Whether reasonable apprehension of bias - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2867 of 2013

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     No appearance
First Defendant              :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     No appearance
Third Defendant            :     No appearance
Fourth Defendant           :     No appearance
Fifth Defendant              :     No appearance
Sixth Defendant             :     No appearance
Seventh Defendant         :     No appearance
Eighth Defendant           :     No appearance
Ninth Defendant             :     No appearance
Tenth Defendant            :     No appearance
Eleventh Defendant        :     No appearance
Twelfth Defendant         :     No appearance
Thirteenth Defendant      :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     In person
First Defendant              :     Taylor Smart Lawyers & Notaries
Second Defendant         :     Kershaw Legal
Third Defendant            :     Kershaw Legal
Fourth Defendant           :     No appearance
Fifth Defendant              :     No appearance
Sixth Defendant             :     No appearance
Seventh Defendant         :     No appearance
Eighth Defendant           :     No appearance
Ninth Defendant             :     No appearance
Tenth Defendant            :     No appearance
Eleventh Defendant        :     No appearance
Twelfth Defendant         :     Kershaw Legal
Thirteenth Defendant      :     Kershaw Legal

CIV 2865 of 2013

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     No appearance
First Defendant              :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     No appearance
Third Defendant            :     No appearance
Fourth Defendant           :     No appearance
Fifth Defendant              :     No appearance
Sixth Defendant             :     No appearance
Seventh Defendant         :     No appearance
Eighth Defendant           :     No appearance
Ninth Defendant             :     No appearance
Tenth Defendant            :     No appearance
Eleventh Defendant        :     No appearance
Twelfth Defendant         :     No appearance
Thirteenth Defendant      :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     In person
First Defendant              :     Kershaw Legal
Second Defendant         :     Kershaw Legal
Third Defendant            :     Kershaw Legal
Fourth Defendant           :     No appearance
Fifth Defendant              :     No appearance
Sixth Defendant             :     No appearance
Seventh Defendant         :     No appearance

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Donaldson v Nolan [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Donaldson v Nolan [No 2] [2015] WASC 158
Case: [2015] WASC 158
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Donaldson v Nolan [No 2], the matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Donaldson, sought to have the defendant Nolan recuse themselves from the case due to a perceived bias. The dispute centred on the potential influence of Nolan's prior relationship with a key witness in the case on their impartiality. Donaldson argued that this prior relationship could result in an unjust outcome, as Nolan might be inclined to favour the witness's testimony.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Nolan. This required the court to consider the nature of Nolan's prior relationship with the witness, the extent to which this relationship could impact Nolan's impartiality, and whether any such bias was so significant as to necessitate recusal. The court had to balance the principles of procedural fairness and the presumption of impartiality against the practicalities of judicial recusal in the context of ongoing litigation.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the facts of the case, including the history of Nolan's interactions with the witness. The court concluded that the relationship, while existing, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias sufficient to warrant recusal. The court found that the relationship was not such that it would cause a fair-minded observer to conclude that Nolan could not approach the case with an open mind. Consequently, the application for recusal was dismissed, and Nolan was permitted to continue as the presiding judge in the case. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process while also recognising the need for a balanced and nuanced approach to questions of bias.

Orders