Odtojan v Condon

In *Odtojan v Condon*, the applicant, Ms Marie Odtojan, sought leave to appeal from orders made by a primary judge. The dispute concerned the applicant's pleadings, which alleged fraud and conspiracy, and the primary judge's conduct during the hearing. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales by Leeming and Kirk JJA.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge had demonstrated apprehended or actual bias during the applicant's oral address, whether the making of the orders breached procedural fairness, and whether the orders requiring the applicant to serve supporting affidavits and documents with a draft further amended statement of claim were *ultra vires*. The Court also considered the adequacy of the applicant's pleading of fraud and conspiracy, and the conduct of the applicant and her McKenzie friend, a solicitor, in making allegations of misconduct against others.

The Court found that the primary judge's interventions and queries during the applicant's oral address were reasonable and did not exceed permissible bounds, nor did they prevent the applicant from properly presenting her case, thus no apprehended bias was established. The Court also determined that there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the parties had been consulted on indicative orders and the applicant had conceded that her amended statement of claim needed reformulation. Furthermore, the applicant had, in oral submissions, agreed that reasons were not required, thereby relinquishing her entitlement to them. The orders made were found to fall within the power granted by UCPR r 2.1. The Court noted that the applicant's pleading of fraud and conspiracy was concededly defective. Finally, the Court expressed concern regarding the repeated and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct made by the applicant and her solicitor, suggesting a possible breach of the Solicitors’ Conduct Rules, and provided an opportunity for them to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.

The Court of Appeal ordered an extension of time for seeking leave to appeal, but dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs payable forthwith. Additionally, Ms Odtojan and Mr Artem Bryl were each given 14 days to show cause why the judgment and papers should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.