Eliezer v Yang

The applicant, Eliezer, sought leave to appeal from decisions of a primary judge concerning costs orders made in interlocutory proceedings. The primary judge had made one of the costs orders that Eliezer sought to have varied, and had also refused to disqualify himself from hearing the matter due to apprehended bias. Eliezer's application to set aside these costs orders, made under rule 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, was dismissed by the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Eliezer had demonstrated that his challenges to the primary judge's decisions had realistic prospects of success, which is the threshold for granting leave to appeal under rule 36.15. This involved considering whether the primary judge erred in making the costs orders, in refusing to disqualify himself for apprehended bias, or in dismissing the application to set aside the costs orders.

Meagher and Brereton JJA found that Eliezer's challenges to the primary judge's decisions lacked realistic prospects of success. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The Court ordered that Eliezer pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.