Leedman v Chahhoud - [2024] NSWSC 1566

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leedman v Chahhoud [2024] NSWSC 1566
Hearing dates: 5 December 2024
Date of orders: 5 December 2024
Decision date: 05 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Williams J
Decision:
Application for recusal dismissed - see orders at [34].

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PRODECURE – Application for recusal on the grounds of actual or apprehended bias – No question of principle.

Legislation Cited:
N/A.

Cases Cited:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v SunshineLoans Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2024] FCA 786
Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225; [2003] HCA 7
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; [2011] HCA 2
Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289; [2021] HCA 29
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (2024) 419 ALR 212; [2024] HCA 32
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48
QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 409 ALR 65; [2023] HCA 15
Russo v Russo (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 449
Sood v Christianos [2008] NSWSC 1087

Texts Cited:
N/A.

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Kim Leedman (First Plaintiff)
Anita Leedman (Second Plaintiff)
Trilam Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 130 367 412) (Third Plaintiff)
Chadia Chahhoud (First Defendant)
Elias Taleb (Second Defendant)
Fawaz Helou (Third Defendant)
Ozem Kassem in his capacity as liquidator of Class 1 Form Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Daniel Krochmalik with Ms Ada Lim (Plaintiffs)
Ms Chadia Chahhoud (Litigant in person) (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
JHK Legal (Plaintiffs)
Ms Chadia Chahhoud (Litigant in person) (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/158199
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Background

On 16 October 2024, I delivered judgment in these proceedings setting out my reasons for upholding the plaintiffs’ claim to have an equitable charge over the first defendant’s property referred to in those reasons as the Peak View Property, and for making orders for the judicial sale of the Peak View Property and for the appointment of the plaintiffs as the agents of the Court to effect that sale, but requiring the plaintiffs to make an application for directions concerning the sale of the Peak View Property and to comply with such directions as the Court may make on that application and otherwise to comply with the duties that a mortgagee owes when selling mortgaged land.^[1]
1. Leedman v Chahhoud [2024] NSWSC 1284.
My reasons for requiring the plaintiffs to apply for directions were explained in paragraphs [341]-[342] of my principal reasons for judgment published on 16 October 2024 (omitting citations):

“A judicial sale is ordinarily conducted by public auction in order to ensure that the market is fully tested and the best price is obtained. However, the Court may order a sale by public tender or by private treaty. As referred to at [295] above, the plaintiffs have adduced evidence that they were advised by…

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 Leedman v Chahhoud

Details

AGLC: Leedman v Chahhoud [2024] NSWSC 1566
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1566
Decision Date: 05 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leedman v Chahhoud, the plaintiff, Mr Leedman, sought to challenge the decision of the respondent, Mr Chahhoud, who was acting as a magistrate in a proceeding involving the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that Mr Chahhoud should have recused himself due to actual or apprehended bias. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether Mr Chahhoud should have recused himself from presiding over the matter, given the plaintiff's contention that there was actual or apprehended bias. The court had to consider the principles governing judicial impartiality and the test for determining when a judicial officer should recuse themselves from a case.

The court examined the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and found that there was no basis for the plaintiff's claim of actual or apprehended bias. The court held that Mr Chahhoud's conduct did not demonstrate any bias or lack of impartiality. The court further clarified that there was no question of principle involved in the case and that the application for recusal was without merit. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for recusal.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for recusal was dismissed, and the orders sought by the plaintiff were denied. The case underscores the importance of maintaining judicial impartiality and the stringent requirements for establishing actual or apprehended bias in judicial proceedings.

Orders