Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd

Glew, the appellant, appealed against a decision of Martin CJ, handed down on 25 January 2012, in which his Honour awarded damages to Frank Jasper Pty Ltd, the first respondent, in the sum of $1,541,982.53 plus interest of $521,527.45, a total amount of $2,063,509.98. Glew filed an interim application seeking an order that the decision of the primary judge be 'set aside' until the hearing of the appeal. The Court of Appeal Registrar issued a notice to the parties to attend for consideration of that application, and also to consider whether any of the grounds of appeal should be struck out because they do not have a reasonable prospect of success (Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(f)) or whether the appeal should be dismissed because none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of success (r 43(2)(g)). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 23 April 2012.

The grounds of appeal included a challenge to the trial judge's authority to determine the proceedings on the basis that he had a reasonable apprehension of bias as he had been briefed as counsel in an unrelated action 10 years earlier by solicitors for the first respondent. The other grounds of appeal repeated arguments dismissed in earlier cases. The court found that the grounds of appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. The court found that the appellant's challenge to the trial judge's authority to determine the proceedings on the basis of apprehended bias was without merit as the trial judge had not acted as counsel for the first respondent in any case related to the proceedings. The court found that the other grounds of appeal repeated arguments dismissed in earlier cases and accordingly had no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of succeeding and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the grounds of appeal were without merit and did not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's authority to determine the proceedings was not challenged on any valid basis and that the appellant's arguments were reiterations of arguments dismissed in earlier cases. The Court of Appeal found that the appeal should be dismissed because none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and made no orders as to costs.