Legal Research
Cases
Re Geelong Quarries Pty Ltd

Re Geelong Quarries Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 17 April 2025 72 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

CORPORATIONS LIST

S ECI 2021 03781

IN THE MATTER OF GEELONG QUARRIES PTY LTD (ACN 129 611 025)

ANTHONY PETER HOARE & ANOR (according to the Schedule)	Plaintiff
v
MATHEW CHARLES HOARE & ORS (according to the Schedule)	Defendant

TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2020 02806

ANTHONY PETER HOARE	Plaintiff
v
AMBERLOWE PTY LTD (ACN 007 056 742) & ORS (according to the Schedule)	Defendants

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2020 03342

ANTHONY PETER HOARE & ORS (according to the Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
MATHEW CHARLES HOARE & ORS (according to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Delany J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	17 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Geelong Quarries Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 205

---

COURTS AND JUDGES – Application to disqualify for apparent bias – Disqualification by conduct – Asserted findings in reasons following an interlocutory hearing – Asserted failure to provide procedural fairness and a fair hearing – Application refused – Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63, (2000) 205 CLR 337, applied – Webb v The Queen [1994] HCA 30; Fuller v Fletcher Building Ltd [2024] VSC 712, referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Anthony Hoare and ET Investments Pty Ltd	Tim J North KC with Dr Eamonn Kelly and Jennifer Collins	Colin, Biggers & Paisley
For Mathew Hoare	Peter Bick KC with Peter Caillard	Bowman Knox
For Kim McDonald	Justin O’Bryan	Madgwicks Lawyers
For Kevin Roache	Tim Jeffrie	K&L Gates
For John Nagle	Scott Stuckey KC with Georgie Coleman	Barry Nilsson

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The fair–minded and reasonably informed lay observer.......................................................... 8

The hearing on 29 January 2025..................................................................................................... 10

The first question: grounds for apprehended bias.................................................................... 13

The Change of Position Finding................................................................................................... 16

Anthony’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 16
Mathew’s submissions................................................................................................................... 19
Kim’s submissions......................................................................................................................... 19
Mr Nagle’s submissions................................................................................................................ 19
Consideration................................................................................................................................. 20

The Ulterior Purpose Finding........................................................................................................ 25

Anthony’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 25
Mathew’s Submissions.................................................................................................................. 26
Kim’s submissions......................................................................................................................... 26
Consideration................................................................................................................................. 26

The Concealment Finding.............................................................................................................. 27

Anthony’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 27
Mathew’s submissions................................................................................................................... 27
Kim’s submissions......................................................................................................................... 28
Consideration................................................................................................................................. 29

The failure to afford procedural fairness.................................................................................... 30

Anthony’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 30
Mathew’s submissions................................................................................................................... 35
Kim’s submissions......................................................................................................................... 37
Nagle’s submissions....................................................................................................................... 39

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 40

The cumulative effect of the conduct relied upon in support of recusal application....... 46

The proposal by Mathew that paragraph 4(c) of the February Orders be vacated............. 46

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 47

HIS HONOUR:

These reasons deal with an application by the plaintiffs in three related proceedings that I recuse myself from the final hearing and determination of those proceedings.

The three proceedings are proceeding S ECI 2021 03781 (‘Oppression Proceeding’), proceeding S ECI 2020 02806 (‘Distribution Proceeding’) and proceeding S ECI 2020 03342 (‘Separation Proceeding’) (collectively, ‘Proceedings’).

Following a hearing on 29 January 2025, on 7 February 2025 I made various orders, including setting…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Geelong Quarries Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSC 205
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Geelong Quarries Pty Ltd involved an application for the disqualification of a judge on the grounds of apparent bias, failure to provide procedural fairness, and a fair hearing. The applicant, Geelong Quarries Pty Ltd, sought to disqualify the judge who was presiding over a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was centred around the applicant's claims that the judge had prejudged the matter and failed to provide procedural fairness during an interlocutory hearing.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the judge's conduct amounted to apparent bias and whether there was a failure to provide procedural fairness. The applicant argued that the judge had made findings in the reasons following the interlocutory hearing that indicated prejudgment of the case, thereby failing to maintain an impartial position required of a judge. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the judge did not afford procedural fairness during the interlocutory hearing, which prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair hearing.

In examining these issues, the court referred to the principles established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, where the High Court outlined the criteria for apparent bias. The court also considered the case of Webb v The Queen, which further elaborated on the standard of impartiality expected of a judge. The reasoning of the court was grounded in the understanding that for a judge to be disqualified on the grounds of apparent bias, there must be a real likelihood that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues in the proceeding. The court found that the judge's actions did not meet this threshold, and there was no failure to provide procedural fairness as claimed by the applicant. Consequently, the application for disqualification was refused.

Orders