Mohareb v Kelso

Case [2021] NSWCA 103


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mohareb v Kelso [2021] NSWCA 103
Hearing dates: 21 May 2021
Date of orders: 24 May 2021
Decision date: 24 May 2021
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
McCallum JA at [20]
Decision:

(1)   Grant leave to Mr Mohareb to appeal in respect of the orders made by Ierace J on 16 October 2020, limited to the issues of whether Mr Mohareb’s notice of motion of 1 February 2018 should have been dismissed by the Registrar and whether Mr Mohareb’s Amended Summons filed on 13 August 2020 was taken to be dismissed by operation of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

(2)   Otherwise dismiss Mr Mohareb’s summons seeking leave to appeal.

(3)   Order that Mr Mohareb’s and Mr Alexander Kelso’s costs of the summons seeking leave to appeal be costs in the appeal.

(4)   Order that Mr Mohareb pay the costs of the other respondents to his summons seeking leave to appeal.

Catchwords:

APPEALS – leave to appeal – applicant’s notice of motion dismissed by Registrar – whether primary judge in error in refusing to set aside that dismissal – whether applicant’s amended summons was taken to be dismissed by operation of the Vexatious Proceedings Act – relevant vexatious proceedings order later set aside on appeal – arguable basis for challenging those orders demonstrated – leave to appeal granted on a limited basis

COURTS AND JUDGES – bias – application for recusal – ground of apprehended bias – applicant unable to identify any reason why a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues arising on the application – judge declined to recuse herself

Legislation Cited:

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63

Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288; [1983] HCA 17

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Nader Mohareb (Applicant)
Mr Alexander Edward Kelso (First Respondent)
Mr John Alexander Kelso (Second Respondent)
Mr Roderick Gerrard Smith (Third Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented Applicant
Ms I King (Second Respondent)
Self-represented Third Respondent

Solicitors:
MCW Lawyers (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/313168
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

[2020] NSWSC 1402

Date of Decision:
16 October 2020
Before:
Ierace J
File Number(s):
2020/174984

Judgment

  1. MACFARLAN JA: This is an application by Mr Nader Mohareb for leave to appeal from a decision dated 16 October 2020 of Ierace J of the Common Law Division ([2020] NSWSC 1402).

  2. As to the background to the application, it is sufficient to note the following.

  3. In 2014 Mr Mohareb commenced District Court proceedings against Mr Alexander Kelso, the present first respondent. (Mr Kelso was notified of the hearing in this Court on 21 May 2021 but did not appear.)

  4. On 4 December 2017 Mr Kelso assaulted Mr Mohareb, leading to Mr Kelso’s conviction…

Continue reading Mohareb v Kelso

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mohareb v Kelso [2021] NSWCA 103
Case
[2021] NSWCA 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohareb v Kelso concerned an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales following a decision by Ierace J. The applicant, Mr Mohareb, sought to challenge the dismissal of his notice of motion by a Registrar and the subsequent dismissal of his amended summons by operation of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act*. Mr Mohareb also sought the recusal of the primary judge on grounds of apprehended bias.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge erred in refusing to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of Mr Mohareb's notice of motion, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Mohareb's amended summons was automatically dismissed under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act*. The court also considered whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying the recusal of the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Macfarlan and McCallum JJA, granted leave to appeal on a limited basis concerning the dismissal of the notice of motion and the operation of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act*. The court found that Mr Mohareb had demonstrated an arguable basis for challenging the orders made under the Act, particularly as a relevant vexatious proceedings order had since been set aside on appeal. However, the court found no merit in the apprehended bias claim, concluding that a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the issues.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in respect of the specific orders concerning the notice of motion and the *Vexatious Proceedings Act*, but otherwise dismissed Mr Mohareb's summons seeking leave to appeal. Costs were ordered to follow the event, with costs of the summons being costs in the appeal and Mr Mohareb ordered to pay the costs of other respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant leave to Mr Mohareb to appeal in respect of the orders made by Ierace J on 16 October 2020, limited to the issues of whether Mr Mohareb’s notice of motion of 1 February 2018 should have been dismissed by the Registrar and whether Mr Mohareb’s Amended Summons filed on 13 August 2020 was taken to be dismissed by operation of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

(2) Otherwise dismiss Mr Mohareb’s summons seeking leave to appeal.

(3) Order that Mr Mohareb’s and Mr Alexander Kelso’s costs of the summons seeking leave to appeal be costs in the appeal.

(4) Order that Mr Mohareb pay the costs of the other respondents to his summons seeking leave to appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.