Lunn v The Commissioner for Public Employment
Case
•
[2009] NSWSC 19
•6 February 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lunn v The Commissioner for Public Employment [2009] NSWSC 19
[2009] NSWSC 19
6 February 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Lunn v The Commissioner for Public Employment involved an application by the applicant, Lunn, to transfer an action from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The dispute centred around issues of apprehended bias and embarrassment against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who was alleged to be biased against the applicant. The applicant argued that the Chief Justice had prejudged the matter and was therefore unfit to preside over the case. The application was made on the basis that the bias of the Chief Justice would prevent a fair trial and that the matter should be heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory instead.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had established grounds for apprehended bias and whether the application should be transferred to another jurisdiction. The court had to consider the principles of judicial impartiality and the circumstances under which a judge may be considered biased. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application for transfer was an appropriate remedy given the grounds for apprehended bias.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any facts that would justify the apprehension of bias on the part of the Chief Justice. The evidence provided did not substantiate the claim that the Chief Justice had prejudged the matter. The court concluded that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving apprehended bias to the requisite standard. Consequently, the application to transfer the action to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was refused. The court held that there was no ground for the apprehension of bias and that the matter should proceed in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
No further orders were made by the court, as the primary application to transfer the action was dismissed. The applicant was left to pursue their case in the jurisdiction where it had originally been filed.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had established grounds for apprehended bias and whether the application should be transferred to another jurisdiction. The court had to consider the principles of judicial impartiality and the circumstances under which a judge may be considered biased. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application for transfer was an appropriate remedy given the grounds for apprehended bias.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any facts that would justify the apprehension of bias on the part of the Chief Justice. The evidence provided did not substantiate the claim that the Chief Justice had prejudged the matter. The court concluded that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving apprehended bias to the requisite standard. Consequently, the application to transfer the action to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was refused. The court held that there was no ground for the apprehension of bias and that the matter should proceed in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
No further orders were made by the court, as the primary application to transfer the action was dismissed. The applicant was left to pursue their case in the jurisdiction where it had originally been filed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Apprehended Bias
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Dowling [2021] NSWSC 726
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Kostov v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2)
[2020] NSWCA 94
Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Dowling
[2021] NSWSC 726
R v Curtis (No 3)
[2016] NSWSC 866
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
3
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry
[2000] NSWCA 353
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry
[2000] NSWCA 353
BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz
[2004] HCA 61