Industrial Court
New South Wales
Case Title: Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd v Morrison (No 3) Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWIC 1 Hearing Date(s): 29 May 2014 Decision Date: 22 October 2014 Before: Walton J, President at [1];
Staff J at [3];
Boland AJ at [4]Decision: The appellants' recusal applications are refused. Costs are reserved.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - applications by appellants that Full Bench not sit to hear appeals - reasonable apprehension of bias in the form of prejudgment - Full Bench in interlocutory proceedings made findings regarding whether appellants be granted leave to serve summonses to produce on certain parties Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005Cases Cited: Barakat v Goritsas (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 36
Bradshaw v The Queen, unreported, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970228, 13 May 1997
British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 242 CLR 283
Bugeja & Johnson v The Queen [2010] VSCA 321; (2010) 30 VR 493
Duncan v Ipp [2013] NSWCA 189; (2013) 304 ALR 359
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337
Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131; (2012) 224 A Crim R 22
GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited [2013] FCAFC 150
Hunter Quarries Pty Limited v Morrison [2013] NSWIRComm 49; (2013) 236 IR 180
Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd v Morrison (No 2) [2013] NSWIRComm 98
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Liberti v R (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Mallard v R [2005] HCA 68; (2005) 224 CLR 125
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427
R v Apostilides [1984] HCA 38; (1984) 154 CLR 563
R v Lucas [1973] VR 693
R v William Vincenzo Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320
Regina v James Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86
Rodney Morrison v Hunter Quarries Pty Limited and Another [2009] NSWIRComm 179Texts Cited: "Duties of Bar and Bench: Some Reflections on Case Management and Judicial Bias". Speech by Chief Justice of New South Wales to NSW Bar Association CPD Conference, 29 March 2014 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd (Appellant - IRC 1111 of 2012)
Richard Badior (Appellant - IRC 1126 of 2012)
Rodney Morrison (Respondent)Representation - Counsel: B G Docking of counsel (Appellant - IRC 1111 of 2012)
D H Nagle of counsel (Appellant - IRC 1126 of 2012)
M B J Lee SC with A Rao of counsel (Respondent)- Solicitors: McDonald Johnson Lawyers (Appellants)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)File Number(s): IRC 1111 and 1126 of 2012
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT
Walton J, President
In this matter, the appellants, Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd and Richard Alexanda Badior, made application for my recusal from these proceedings for apprehended bias.
Having considered the submissions of counsel on behalf of the appellants, and having had the opportunity to consider the draft…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd v Morrison (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2014] NSWIC 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd, along with two other appellants, brought an appeal against the decision of the primary judge in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute at hand involves the validity of a contract and the liability of the respondent, Morrison, under that contract. The appellants sought to appeal the primary judge's decision and subsequently applied for the Full Bench to recuse itself on the grounds of apprehended bias. The Full Bench, however, dismissed the appellants' applications for recusal.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Full Bench had a reasonable apprehension of bias and whether the Full Bench's findings in the interlocutory proceedings constituted an opinion on the merits of the appeal. The appellants argued that the Full Bench's findings in the interlocutory proceedings indicated a prejudgment on the merits of the appeal, which created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court needed to determine whether these findings were an opinion on the merits and whether they amounted to bias.
The court examined the nature of the Full Bench's findings in the interlocutory proceedings and concluded that they did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the appeal. Instead, the court found that the Full Bench's findings were made in the context of determining whether the appellants should be granted leave to serve summonses to produce on certain parties. The court held that these findings did not reflect a view on the ultimate merits of the appeal and, therefore, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the appellants' applications for recusal were dismissed.
No specific orders were made regarding costs at the time of the decision, with the court reserving that matter for further consideration.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Full Bench had a reasonable apprehension of bias and whether the Full Bench's findings in the interlocutory proceedings constituted an opinion on the merits of the appeal. The appellants argued that the Full Bench's findings in the interlocutory proceedings indicated a prejudgment on the merits of the appeal, which created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court needed to determine whether these findings were an opinion on the merits and whether they amounted to bias.
The court examined the nature of the Full Bench's findings in the interlocutory proceedings and concluded that they did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the appeal. Instead, the court found that the Full Bench's findings were made in the context of determining whether the appellants should be granted leave to serve summonses to produce on certain parties. The court held that these findings did not reflect a view on the ultimate merits of the appeal and, therefore, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the appellants' applications for recusal were dismissed.
No specific orders were made regarding costs at the time of the decision, with the court reserving that matter for further consideration.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appellants' recusal applications are refused. Costs are reserved.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.