HARRADINE v The State of SA

This matter comes before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia on an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory order. The applicant, Mr. Harradine, sought leave to appeal against a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's complaints about the conduct of the respondents and his submissions regarding the exercise of discretion to enter default judgment against him.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the application for leave to appeal raised any issue of principle or general importance, and whether the grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable. Specifically, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in refusing to disqualify herself from hearing the matter, following the applicant's submissions that the judge had made comments during argument that were perceived as favourable to the respondent. The court also examined whether the applicant had demonstrated that the judge might decide the matter on a basis other than its legal and factual merits.

The Full Court reasoned that the applicant had not identified any serious issue of principle or general importance warranting leave to appeal. While the applicant detailed his grievances about the respondents' conduct and argued for the discretion to enter default judgment to be exercised in his favour, this did not, in itself, raise a serious issue of principle. The court found that the applicant's complaints regarding the judge's alleged bias did not meet the test established in *Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy*, as they were grounded in the applicant's perception of the reasonableness of his own arguments and the judge's disagreement with them, rather than demonstrating a feared deviation from deciding the case on its merits.

Consequently, the Full Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal did not raise any serious question of principle or general importance, nor were the grounds of appeal reasonably arguable. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.