Sturesteps v Khoury (No 2)

The case of Sturesteps v Khoury (No 2) involved the applicant, Sturesteps, seeking the recusal of a Judge who had previously made allegations of fraud against the respondent, Khoury, in unrelated proceedings. Khoury, who was appearing as junior counsel in applications before the Judge, argued that the Judge's prior involvement as counsel in the earlier proceedings created an apprehension of bias. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the prior involvement of the Judge was sufficient to necessitate recusal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Judge's prior allegations of fraud against Khoury in a separate matter warranted recusal due to apprehended bias. The court needed to consider the principles governing judicial recusal and whether the circumstances created a real likelihood of bias in the current proceedings. Specifically, the court examined whether the Judge's prior conduct could reasonably give rise to an apprehension of bias in the mind of a fair-minded lay observer.

The court found that the Judge's prior involvement as counsel in unrelated proceedings, where allegations of fraud were made against Khoury, did not create a real likelihood of bias in the current case. The court held that the Judge's prior conduct did not involve any findings or determinations that would suggest a predisposition in the current proceedings. Furthermore, the court noted that Khoury had not provided any evidence of partiality or any other factors that would support a finding of apprehended bias. The court concluded that the Judge's impartiality was not compromised and denied the application for recusal.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the denial of the recusal application. The case underscores the importance of impartiality in judicial proceedings and the stringent standards required to establish apprehended bias in the context of a recusal application.