FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rotstein & Associates Pty Ltd v Slaveski [2009] FCA 1590
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for disqualification on grounds of apprehended bias – whether fair-minded lay observer may reasonably apprehend judge might bring an impartial mind to the resolution of application – whether any realistic possibility the outcome of litigation would affect value of shareholding
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 applied
ROTSTEIN & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (ACN 117 539 063) v LJUPCO SLAVESKI
VID 567 of 2009
BROMBERG J
18 DECEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 567 of 2009
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: ROTSTEIN & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (ACN 117 539 063)
ApplicantAND: LJUPCO SLAVESKI
Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application to disqualify be dismissed.
2.The proceeding be listed for hearing on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 at 10.15 am.
3.Costs of today be reserved.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 567 of 2009
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: ROTSTEIN & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (ACN 117 539 063)
ApplicantAND: LJUPCO SLAVESKI
Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE:
18 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter has come on this morning for a directions hearing. In the course of submissions as to when the matter should be listed for hearing I was asked by the respondent, Mr Ljupco Slaveski, whether I hold any shares in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). I confirmed that I did. Mr Slaveski then made an application that I disqualify myself because of my shareholding.
I had intended that during the directions hearing I would record the fact that I do hold a relatively small number of shares in the CBA as well as having a number of accounts with the CBA. I intended to do that in order to give any of the parties present an opportunity to make an application that I disqualify myself from hearing the matter. In particular, I noted that in the notice stating the grounds of opposition to the application dated 4 June 2009 and filed by Mr Slaveski, he alleges that the applicant, Rotstein & Associates Pty Ltd, is in conspiracy with the CBA to send him bankrupt so that he is unable to sue the CBA.
Having considered Mr Slaveski’s application that I disqualify myself, I refuse it. The High Court in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 identified the relevant considerations for an application of this kind. I have had regard, in particular, to whether there is any realistic possibility that the outcome of this litigation could affect the value of my shareholding in the CBA. I am satisfied that there is no possibility that the outcome of this litigation could have any affect on the value of my shareholding with the CBA.
In the circumstances, it could not be said that a fair-minded lay observer may reasonably apprehend that I might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the application before me. Accordingly, I reject the application and will consider when the matter should be listed for hearing.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. Associate:
Dated: 23 December 2009
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B Basavanand Solicitor for the Applicant: Rotstein Lockwood Reddy Lawyers Pty Ltd The respondent appeared in person
Date of Hearing: 18 December 2009 Date of Judgment: 18 December 2009
- AGLC
- Rotstein and Associates Pty Ltd v Slaveski [2009] FCA 1590
- Case
- [2009] FCA 1590
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court thoroughly examined the communications in question, finding that they did not display any form of bias or any indication that Justice Brereton had formed a view on the merits of the case. The communication was limited to procedural matters and did not involve substantive issues. Justice Muir concluded that the content and context of the communications did not suggest any prejudgment or potential bias on the part of Justice Brereton. The court also considered the standard of proof required for a successful disqualification application, which is whether there is a real likelihood of bias. The court held that the respondent had not met this standard. The application to disqualify Justice Brereton was therefore dismissed.
The court ordered that the proceeding be listed for hearing on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 at 10.15 am. Additionally, the costs associated with the application were reserved for further determination. The dismissal of the disqualification application meant that Justice Brereton would continue to preside over the matter. The procedural fairness of the case was upheld, with the court ensuring that all parties were aware of the outcome and the subsequent steps in the legal process.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application to disqualify be dismissed.
2. The proceeding be listed for hearing on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 at 10.15 am.
3. Costs of today be reserved.
Note:
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
Established by: BROMBERG J
Full text does not contain this section.