Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd; Mao v BT Funds Management Ltd (No. 4)

The plaintiff, Ms Mao, who is a litigant in person, sought to have the judge recuse himself from further involvement in her proceedings against AMP Superannuation Ltd and BT Funds Management Ltd. The court had previously determined that Ms Mao was a person under a legal incapacity. The legal issues before the court were whether the application for recusal should proceed and whether the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was a valid ground for the application. The application for recusal was set down for a hearing; however, the plaintiff failed to appear, and a stay was sought through email correspondence. The application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was mentioned as a ground for the application, and it was made via email sent to the court the night before the hearing. The email and attached documents were not sent to the defendants.

The court considered the procedural fairness of the application process, the validity of the grounds for recusal, and the impact of the plaintiff's non-appearance. It was held that the application for recusal was not valid as the plaintiff had failed to appear, and the court had no jurisdiction to hear the application. Furthermore, the court held that the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was not a valid ground for recusal, as it was a matter of substantive law, not procedure. The court also held that the failure to send the email and attached documents to the defendants was a breach of procedural fairness, and the application was accordingly dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for recusal be dismissed, and the defendants were to pay their own costs of the application. The court further ordered that the plaintiff was to pay the defendants' costs of the application on an indemnity basis. The court also held that the plaintiff's failure to appear at the hearing was a contempt of court, and the plaintiff was to be fined $500. Finally, the court ordered that the plaintiff was to pay the defendants' costs of the application on an indemnity basis.