SOCIÉTÉ Des Produits NestlÉ SA and ANOR v Christian and ANOR (No.8)

[2014] FCCA 2483

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ SA & ANOR v CHRISTIAN & ANOR (No.8) [2014] FCCA 2483

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a case for adjournment of the application in a case for recusal – whether there is utility in adjourning the application in a case for recusal – no utility in adjourning the application in a case for recusal – application in a case for adjournment of the application in a case for recusal dismissed.

First Applicant: SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ SA

Second Applicant: NESTLÉ AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 000 011 316

First Respondent: JAMES WILLIAM CHRISTIAN

Second Respondent: MARK CHARLES CHRISTIAN

File Number: SYG 3214 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date: 2 September 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 2 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicants: Ms M. Olsen by telephone
Banki Haddock Fiora

First Respondent by telephone

ORDERS

1. The application in a case for an adjournment of the application in a case for recusal is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 3214 of 2013

SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ SA

First Applicant

NESTLÉ AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 000 011 316

Second Applicant

And

JAMES WILLIAM CHRISTIAN

First Respondent

MARK CHARLES CHRISTIAN

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. On 31 August 2014, the first respondent Mr Christian filed an application that I recuse myself.  On 1 September 2014 I listed that application for hearing before me at 2.15 pm on 2 September 2014.  After the parties were informed of the listing, Mr Christian sent an email to my associate requesting that it be listed on 1 October 2014.  The reason he gave is that he required sufficient time to go through the referral service at Justice Connect for the purpose of applying to receive relevant pro bono legal advice “in relation to these matters”.

2. By “these matters”, Mr Christian intended to refer not only to his application that I recuse myself but also to the application in a case filed by Mr Christian which I heard on 29 August 2014 and the substantive hearing which took place on 6 June 2014.  I do not propose to adjourn the application in a case for recusal.  I do not do so because in my opinion there would be no utility in doing so.  Mr Christian has raised the matters which he believes gives rise to an apprehension of bias. 

3. Having been raised, I am duty-bound to consider whether they do raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.  It will be a matter for me to decide that question, and it is unlikely that I would be assisted by hearing submissions by a lawyer on the law.  Further, Mr Christian has demonstrated an ability to express himself clearly.  It is unlikely that a lawyer would be able to enhance the language which Mr Christian has used to claim that I should recuse myself. 

4. That only deals with that part of the application in a case as applies to Mr Christian's application for an adjournment of the application that I recuse myself.  As to Mr Christian’s application that I adjourn the dates on which I am due to deliver my judgment on the application in a case that I heard on 29 August 2014, and on the substantive hearing, I will reserve my decision and deliver it at 9.30 am tomorrow morning.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Manousaridis

Associate: 

Date:  29 October 2014