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:
Solicitors:
Self-represented Applicant
Ms I King (Second Respondent)
Self-represented Third Respondent
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:
- Date of Decision:
- 16 October 2020
- Before:
- Ierace J
- File Number(s):
- 2020/174984
Judgment
-
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).
-
As to the background to the application, it is sufficient to note the following.
-
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.)
-
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
- AGLC
- Mohareb v Kelso [2021] NSWCA 103
- Case
- [2021] NSWCA 103
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.