McDonald v Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

This matter concerned an application for permission to appeal from orders made by Bampton J in proceedings initiated by the Attorney-General against Mr and Mrs McDonald, seeking declarations that they were vexatious litigants. The Attorney-General had also sought interlocutory orders staying extant proceedings instituted by Mr and Mrs McDonald and an interim injunction restraining them from filing further proceedings without leave. Bampton J had granted an interim injunction pending the determination of the interlocutory application. Mr and Mrs McDonald appealed these orders.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether permission to appeal should be granted from Bampton J's orders. A secondary issue arose from allegations of bias made by Mr and Mrs McDonald against Bampton J, which they contended rendered her decision "plainly wrong" and requiring it to be set aside.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. It reasoned that the allegations of bias against Bampton J were not properly before the Court because the issue of disqualification had not been raised with her Honour at first instance. Consequently, the Court held that the grounds of appeal relying on bias were not properly formulated. The Court also noted that the appeal was from interlocutory orders, and the threshold for granting permission to appeal in such circumstances was not met.

Permission to appeal was refused, with costs.