SafeWork NSW v Boral Cement Limited (No.1)

In the case of SafeWork NSW v Boral Cement Limited, the primary dispute was whether the presiding judge should recuse themselves from hearing a subsequent matter due to potential bias. This case was heard in the relevant court in New South Wales. The applicant, Boral Cement Limited, sought the disqualification of the judge on the grounds that their involvement in fact-finding in a previous judgment created an apprehension of bias. The previous judgment included an agreed statement of facts, and the nature of the decision made within this context was central to the argument of apprehended bias.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the judge's prior involvement in fact-finding created an actual or apprehended bias and if such involvement could be reconciled with the judge's impartiality in the subsequent trial. The court considered the precedents and principles regarding judicial impartiality and the circumstances under which a judge might be disqualified due to apprehended bias. The court also examined the nature of the decision made in the previous judgment and the context in which it was rendered.

The court determined that the prior involvement of the judge in fact-finding did not create an actual bias or an apprehension of bias sufficient to disqualify them from the subsequent trial. The court held that the nature of the decision made in the previous judgment, along with the agreed statement of facts, did not undermine the judge's impartiality. The court concluded that the judge could remain on the case and refused the application for disqualification. The court also reserved the costs of the application for disqualification, leaving the issue of costs to be determined later.