Mohareb v Kelso (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWCA 182


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mohareb v Kelso (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 182
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 20 August 2021
Decision date: 20 August 2021
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
McCallum JA at [10]
Decision:

(1)    Reject the applications for the recusal of Macfarlan JA and McCallum JA.

(2)    Amend Order (1) made on 24 May 2021 by adding the words “in relation to Mr Mohareb’s claim against Mr Alexander Kelso” after the word “issues”.

(3)    Dismiss Mr Mohareb’s Amended Notice of Motion filed on 1 June 2021, with costs.

Catchwords:

JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – amending, varying and setting aside – motion under UCPR r 36.16 to set aside previous judgment of Court – judgment granted leave to appeal limited to specific issues – whether grant of leave should be extended to allow applicant to appeal against entire decision including costs order made by Registrar and reviewed by primary judge – no good reason to permit appellate challenge to costs order – costs order appears to have been appropriate in the circumstances

COURTS AND JUDGES – bias – application for recusal – allegations of apprehended bias and actual bias against judges – applications rejected

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16, 36.17

Cases Cited:

Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6

Brown Brothers Waste Contractors Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2015) 90 NSWLR 717; [2015] NSWCA 215

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

Lawrence v Ciantar (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 186

Poulos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 72

Lee v Cha [2008] NSWCA 13

Wende v Horwath (NSW) Pty Ltd (2014) 86 NSWLR 674; [2014] NSWCA 170

Zepinic v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 320

Category:Procedural rulings
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)
J Prowse (sol) (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: By judgment of 24 May 2021 ([2021] NSWCA 103), the Court as presently constituted made the following orders:

“(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…

Continue reading Mohareb v Kelso (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mohareb v Kelso (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 182
Case
[2021] NSWCA 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Mr Mohareb (the applicant) and Mr Kelso (the respondent). The dispute concerned an application by Mr Mohareb to set aside a previous judgment of the Court. The matter came before Macfarlan and McCallum JJA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant leave to appeal against the entirety of the previous decision, including a costs order made by the Registrar and reviewed by the primary judge, and whether to recuse the judges on the grounds of apprehended or actual bias.

The Court rejected the applications for recusal, finding no basis for allegations of bias. Regarding the appeal, the Court determined that there was no good reason to extend the leave to appeal to encompass the costs order. The Court reasoned that the costs order appeared to have been appropriate in the circumstances.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the applications for recusal be rejected. It also ordered that the previous order of 24 May 2021 be amended to specify that leave to appeal was granted only in relation to Mr Mohareb’s claim against Mr Alexander Kelso. Finally, Mr Mohareb’s Amended Notice of Motion filed on 1 June 2021 was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Reject the applications for the recusal of Macfarlan JA and McCallum JA.

(2) Amend Order (1) made on 24 May 2021 by adding the words “in relation to Mr Mohareb’s claim against Mr Alexander Kelso” after the word “issues”.

(3) Dismiss Mr Mohareb’s Amended Notice of Motion filed on 1 June 2021, with costs.

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.