Horleck and Horleck & Ors

In the matter of *Horleck and Horleck & Ors*, the applicant wife sought the recusal of the trial judge, Bell J, from further conduct of the proceedings on the grounds of apprehended bias. All parties to the proceedings had been self-represented throughout.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge, such that the judge ought to disqualify himself from continuing to hear the matter. This required an assessment of whether a fair-minded and informed lay observer, having considered the facts, would apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge was required to decide.

Bell J applied the well-established test for apprehended bias, considering the conduct and statements made during the proceedings. The judge concluded that, while not actually biased, the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, Bell J ordered his own disqualification from the further hearing of any proceedings in relation to the matter, save for any necessary directions. The proceedings were subsequently listed for trial commencing on 3 September 2012, with directions given for the respondents to file their reply affidavits within thirty days.