Peter Markan v Bar Association of Queensland

PETER MARKAN
v
BAR ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND
[2014] HCASL 119
B13/2014

The applicant brought proceedings against the respondent in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent brought an application to have the applicant's claim struck out. At the hearing of that application by Fryberg J, the applicant applied for Fryberg J to recuse himself because the son of the Judge was a member of the respondent Association. Fryberg J dismissed the application to recuse himself, ordered that the applicant's claim and Statement of Claim be struck out and dismissed the applicant's application to strike out the respondent's application. Fryberg J further ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.
The applicant appealed against these orders to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. That Court (McMurdo P, Muir JA and Mullins J) dismissed the appeal with costs.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. Because he is unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would fail.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
6 August 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peter Markan versus Bar Association of Queensland involved an application by the applicant to have his claim against the respondent struck out. The Bar Association of Queensland applied to have the applicant's claim dismissed. Fryberg J dismissed the applicant's claim and struck it out, also ordering the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed his appeal with costs.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Judge should have recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest, and whether the applicant's claim should have been dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that there was no conflict of interest justifying recusal, and that the Judge's decision to dismiss the claim and strike it out was correct.

The Court of Appeal considered the application to recuse the Judge, finding no grounds for recusal as the Judge's son was not directly involved in the case and there was no evidence of bias. The Court of Appeal also found that the Judge was correct to dismiss the applicant's claim as it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's argument that the Judge should have recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.

The orders of the Court of Appeal were affirmed, and the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, and that an appeal to the High Court would fail.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established