Makucha v Sydney Water Corporation (No 2)

In *Makucha v Sydney Water Corporation (No 2)*, the applicant sought a stay of trial proceedings in the Equity Division pending an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Basten JA. The core of the dispute concerned allegations of apprehended bias against the judge, purportedly based on supposed religious beliefs.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether it was appropriate to grant an interlocutory stay of the trial proceedings. Secondly, the court had to consider the prospects of success of the applicant's proposed appeal, particularly in light of the nature of the apprehended bias claim and the alleged conduct of the judge during the hearing. The court also implicitly considered whether it was proper for a judge to rule on their own recusal in this context.

Basten JA refused the motion for a stay, reasoning that a strong case is required for interlocutory intervention, especially when it involves allegations of apprehended bias. The judge found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient prospects of success on their application for leave to appeal to warrant a stay. The court considered the disadvantages of both granting and refusing the stay, ultimately concluding that the former would be inappropriate in the circumstances.

Consequently, the motion to stay the proceedings was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion.