Kostov v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2)

In *Kostov v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2)*, the applicant, Mr Kostov, sought judicial review of a decision. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) was the respondent. The proceedings came before Bell P of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the judge apprehended bias due to their prior retainer by a law firm that acted for a client allegedly involved in vexatious proceedings, and whether the applicant required leave under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) before commencing the judicial review proceedings.

Bell P considered the principles of apprehended bias, noting that the applicant's allegations against the law firm and its client were unsubstantiated. The Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias. Crucially, the Court determined that the applicant, who was subject to an earlier vexatious proceedings order, had failed to obtain the necessary leave under s 13(3) of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) prior to commencing the judicial review proceedings. This failure meant the proceedings were automatically taken to have been dismissed.

Consequently, the application for recusal was refused, leave was granted for the Attorney General for New South Wales to be joined as a third respondent, and the Court declared that the Summons seeking judicial review filed on 6 March 2020 and the proceedings stood dismissed pursuant to s 13(3) of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW).