Perre v Apand Pty Ltd - [2004] FCA 1116

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1116
FRANK PERRE & ORS v APAND PTY LTD & ORS
SG 28 OF 1994
SELWAY J
19 AUGUST 2004
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 28 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE
MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE,
MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE,
WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE

FIRST TO ELEVENTH APPLICANTS

AND:

RANGARA PTY LTD,
FRANCESCO PERRE, MARIA PERRE
TWELFTH TO FOURTEEN APPLICANTS

AND:

APAND PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

AND:

RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS
CROSS RESPONDENTS

AND:

RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS
CROSS CLAIMANTS

AND:

FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE, MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE, MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE, WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE
FIRST TO ELEVENTH CROSS-RESPONDENTS

AND:

STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY
INTERVENERS

JUDGE:

SELWAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 AUGUST 2004

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That the application made in the Notice of Motion dated 17 August 2004 seeking an order that I disqualify myself be dismissed.

2.The question of costs is reserved, noting that the interveners do not seek orders for costs at this stage, and the State of South Australia does seek an order for costs.
3.On the assumption that I have made orders from which an appeal can be brought, the first to eleventh applicants have leave to appeal from those orders on such grounds and in such terms as they shall be advised.

4. Liberty to apply.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 28 OF 1994

BETWEEN:

FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE
MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE,
MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE,
WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE
FIRST TO ELEVENTH APPLICANTS

AND:

RANGARA PTY LTD,
FRANCESCO PERRE, MARIA PERRE
TWELFTH TO FOURTEEN APPLICANTS

AND:

APAND PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

AND:

RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS
CROSS RESPONDENTS

AND:

RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS
CROSS CLAIMANTS

AND:

FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE, MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE, MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE, WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE
FIRST TO ELEVENTH CROSS-RESPONDENTS

AND

STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY
INTERVENERS

JUDGE:

SELWAY J

DATE:

19 AUGUST 2004

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By Notice of Motion dated…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Perre v Apand Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1116
Case: [2004] FCA 1116
Decision Date: 19 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Perre v Apand Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between Vincent Perre and Apand Pty Ltd, involving allegations of contamination by the defendant's waste disposal practices. The dispute was brought before the court for consideration of the defendants' application to disqualify the plaintiff's representative, Mr Justice Ipp, on the grounds of apprehended bias. The case presented a significant point of law concerning the principles of judicial impartiality and the circumstances under which a judge may be disqualified from hearing a case.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by the plaintiff's representative, Mr Justice Ipp, in an interview and in his written reasons, demonstrated an apprehended bias that would prevent him from presiding over the case fairly. The court had to consider the applicable legal standards for assessing bias and whether the actions of the representative had breached these standards. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the representative's conduct warranted the disqualification of the judge and, if so, whether any other remedies were appropriate.

The High Court held that there was no basis to disqualify Mr Justice Ipp from the case. The court found that the representative's comments, while regrettable and not in keeping with the high standards expected of judicial officers, did not indicate a lack of impartiality or a real likelihood of bias. The court emphasised that the principle of judicial impartiality is paramount but also acknowledged the need for a robust and fair legal process. The court concluded that the representative's actions did not reach the threshold of bias that would necessitate disqualification, and thus the application was dismissed. The court also noted that the question of costs was reserved, and leave to appeal was granted to the applicants on the assumption that the orders were appealable.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application made in the Notice of Motion dated 17 August 2004 seeking an order that I disqualify myself be dismissed.

2. The question of costs is reserved, noting that the interveners do not seek orders for costs at this stage, and the State of South Australia does seek an order for costs.

3. On the assumption that I have made orders from which an appeal can be brought, the first to eleventh applicants have leave to appeal from those orders on such grounds and in such terms as they shall be advised.

4. Liberty to apply.

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

SELWAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SELWAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY		SG 28 OF 1994
BETWEEN:	FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE, MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE, WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE FIRST TO ELEVENTH APPLICANTS
AND:	RANGARA PTY LTD, FRANCESCO PERRE, MARIA PERRE TWELFTH TO FOURTEEN APPLICANTS
AND:	APAND PTY LTD RESPONDENT
AND:	RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS CROSS RESPONDENTS
AND:	RISU NOMINEES PTY LTD, RICHARD DUNSTONE TOWNSEND, JOHN ANDREW MORCOMBE, JOHN SHEAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEO JOHN REYNOLDS CROSS CLAIMANTS
AND:	FRANK PERRE, CATERINA PERRE, PASQUALE PERRE, MARY PERRE, GUISEPPE DOMENICO PERRE, MARIA PERRE, JIM PERRE, FRANCES PERRE, WARRUGA FARMS PTY LTD, PERRE’S VINEYARDS PTY LTD, GRACE PERRE FIRST TO ELEVENTH CROSS-RESPONDENTS
AND:	STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY INTERVENERS
JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 AUGUST 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE:	19 AUGUST 2004
PLACE:	ADELAIDE