Girgis v Oueik

The dispute in *Girgis v Oueik* concerned the terms of an agreement for the installation and provision of security cameras. The primary judge had disbelieved the applicant, making findings of fraud and lying under oath against him. While the primary judgment was being reserved, the applicant made a complaint to the Judicial Commission regarding the manner in which the primary judge conducted the hearing. However, the applicant did not suggest in this complaint or otherwise that the primary judge should recuse himself, and the complaint was not referenced in the primary judgment.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two main legal issues. Firstly, whether the primary judge’s failure to refer to the applicant’s complaint to the Judicial Commission demonstrated an arguable basis for apprehended bias. Secondly, whether incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony demonstrated, on an arguable basis, that the primary judge’s rejection of the applicant’s evidence was erroneous. A further issue concerned whether the primary judge erred in relying on expert evidence in the calculation of quantum meruit, noting that this calculation would only result in a difference of $6044.56 to the judgment amount, a sum likely to be outweighed by costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable basis for apprehended bias, as the complaint to the Judicial Commission was made after the hearing concluded and without any request for recusal. Furthermore, the Court was not satisfied that there was an arguable basis to challenge the primary judge's rejection of the applicant's evidence, nor that the reliance on expert evidence for the quantum meruit calculation was erroneous. The Court also considered the principle of finality in litigation, particularly in light of the relatively small sum involved in the quantum meruit dispute.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.