Mio Amico Pty Ltd v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group

Mio Amico Pty Ltd and others (the applicants) sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge, which had refused an adjournment after hearing the substantive matter. The applicants alleged that the reasons given for refusing the adjournment revealed an apprehended bias and that they had been denied procedural fairness. The appeal was heard by Gleeson JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in refusing the adjournment, whether the reasons provided for that refusal demonstrated an apprehended bias on the part of the judge, and consequently, whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness. The applicants did not allege any error in the application of the principles established in *House v The King* (1936) 55 CLR 499.

Gleeson JA found no error in the primary judge's refusal of the adjournment. The judge's reasons for refusing the adjournment were considered in the context of the substantive hearing that had already occurred. The Court determined that the reasons provided did not disclose any apprehended bias. As such, the applicants' claim that they were denied procedural fairness was not upheld.

The applicants' notice of motion filed on 9 September 2013 was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the motion.