Lambourne v Baker (No 10) - [2025] NSWCA 54

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lambourne v Baker (No 10) [2025] NSWCA 54
Hearing dates: 27 March 2025
Date of orders: 27 March 2025
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Before: Adamson JA; Ball JA; Griffiths AJA
Decision:
Refuse Mr Lambourne’s application for an adjournment of his respective applications that Adamson JA recuse herself and that Griffiths AJA recuse himself.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Adjournment — application for adjournment of application for recusal

Cases Cited:
Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539
Feldman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2020) 103 NSWLR 307; [2020] NSWCA 260
Lambourne v Baker (No 6) [2025] NSWCA 45
Lambourne v Baker (No 7) [2025] NSWCA *

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Marc Alan Lambourne (First Applicant)
Glenn Craig Pollett (Second Applicant)
Punters Show Pty Ltd (Third Applicant)
Dallas Matthew Baker (First Respondent)
Todd Cameron Buckingham (Second Respondent)
BetMakers Technology Group Limited (Third Respondent)
12 Follow Pty Limited (Fourth Respondent)
Operis Momentus Pty Limited (Fifth Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M A Lambourne (Applicants) (Self represented)
A P Cheshire SC (Respondents)
Solicitors:
Not applicable (Applicants)
Vintage Law (Respondents)

File Number(s): 2019/407870

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: This judgment deals with an application for an adjournment made by Mr Lambourne on 27 March 2025. Further background is given in Lambourne v Baker (No 7) [2025] NSWCA *, which dealt with one of the substantive applications in respect of which Mr Lambourne sought an adjournment.
At the commencement of the hearing on 27 March 2025, Mr Lambourne was invited to make any application he wished to make for recusal of one or more judges of the Court. He indicated that he wished to make an application in respect of Adamson JA and Griffiths AJA, but not with respect to Ball JA. However, Mr Lambourne sought an adjournment of his applications so that he could obtain the transcript of the proceedings heard on 25 March 2025 and prepare written submissions and an affidavit in support of the application.
Mr Lambourne’s application for an adjournment was refused with reasons to follow. The reasons for the Court’s refusal of the application are as follows.
An application for recusal must be made as soon as reasonably possible on the basis of the material to hand. There is no need for the formality of a notice of motion: Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539 at 543 (Mahoney JA, Cripps JA agreeing). Whether there is an apprehension of bias must be assessed “at the time of the event … said to give rise to the possibility” and not with the benefit of hindsight: Feldman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2020) 103 NSWLR 307; [2020] NSWCA 260 (Feldman) at [41] (Bell P, Macfarlan and Payne JJA agreeing).
The hearing of the application was listed at short notice less than 24 hours after the application had been foreshadowed and less than 48 hours after the substantive hearing of Mr Lambourne’s notice of motion was completed. It was apparent from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lambourne v Baker (No 10)

Details

AGLC: Lambourne v Baker (No 10) [2025] NSWCA 54
Case: [2025] NSWCA 54
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales, constituted by Adamson and Ball JJA and Griffiths AJA, considered an application for an adjournment of applications seeking the recusal of two members of the bench. Mr Lambourne, the applicant, sought to adjourn his own applications for the recusal of Adamson JA and Griffiths AJA.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant Mr Lambourne's application to adjourn his recusal applications. This required the court to consider the principles governing adjournments in circumstances where a party seeks to delay proceedings by applying for the recusal of judges.

The court refused Mr Lambourne's application for an adjournment. The reasoning for this decision is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the court did not consider an adjournment to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Consequently, the court made orders refusing Mr Lambourne’s application for an adjournment of his respective applications that Adamson JA recuse herself and that Griffiths AJA recuse himself.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse Mr Lambourne’s application for an adjournment of his respective applications that Adamson JA recuse herself and that Griffiths AJA recuse himself.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lambourne v Baker (No 10) [2025] NSWCA 54
Hearing dates:	27 March 2025
Date of orders:	27 March 2025
Decision date:	28 March 2025
Before:	Adamson JA; Ball JA; Griffiths AJA
Decision:	Refuse Mr Lambourne’s application for an adjournment of his respective applications that Adamson JA recuse herself and that Griffiths AJA recuse himself.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Adjournment — application for adjournment of application for recusal
Cases Cited:	Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539 Feldman v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2020) 103 NSWLR 307; [2020] NSWCA 260 Lambourne v Baker (No 6) [2025] NSWCA 45 Lambourne v Baker (No 7) [2025] NSWCA *
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Marc Alan Lambourne (First Applicant) Glenn Craig Pollett (Second Applicant) Punters Show Pty Ltd (Third Applicant) Dallas Matthew Baker (First Respondent) Todd Cameron Buckingham (Second Respondent) BetMakers Technology Group Limited (Third Respondent) 12 Follow Pty Limited (Fourth Respondent) Operis Momentus Pty Limited (Fifth Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: M A Lambourne (Applicants) (Self represented) A P Cheshire SC (Respondents) Solicitors: Not applicable (Applicants) Vintage Law (Respondents)
File Number(s):	2019/407870