Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No. 9)

[2014] NSWCA 124

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:	Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No. 9)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWCA 124
Hearing Date(s):	On the papers
Decision Date:	14 April 2014
Before:	Sackville AJA
Decision:	Application refused
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Elaine Teoh (Applicant) Hunters Hill Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2009/298486
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:	Court of Appeal
- Before:	Allsop P, Beazley and Meagher JJA
- Date of Decision:	02 November 2012
- Citation:	Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No.7) [2012] NSWCA 356
- Court File Number(s):	2009/298486

RULING

1. SACKVILLE AJA: On 13 March 2014, the applicant requested in writing that I disqualify myself from participating in the Court's determination as to whether orders should be made against the applicant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (VP Act). The application was made on the ground of "apprehended bias due to [my] conduct at the 18 December '13 directions [hearing]".

2. The applicant made the disqualification application after the date initially set for her to file written submissions showing cause why orders under the VP Act should not be made (14 February 2014) and after she had requested and been granted an extension of time in which to file written submissions.

3. The hearing on 18 December 2013 concerned only two matters. The first was the Motion filed by the applicant, which is dealt with in the judgment delivered by the Court today (Principal Judgment). The applicant accepted at the hearing the proposition put by another member of the Court that the Motion had to be dismissed. There was nothing in the interchanges relating to that Motion that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in relation to the issues arising under the VP Act.

4. The second matter addressed at the hearing was a timetable for the applicant to file written submissions showing cause why orders should not be made under the VP Act. At her request, the applicant sought and was granted a longer time for the filing of written submissions than the Court initially proposed. There was no issue at the hearing as to whether orders under the VP Act should be made.

5. The comment at which the applicant complains was a response to an apprehension, based on the applicant's comments, that she saw the written submissions as a vehicle for re-agitating the issues that had been dealt with in the previous judgments of the Court, rather than as an opportunity to direct her attention to the issues requiring consideration under the VP Act. The comment was not an expression of a view as to whether orders should be made under the VP Act but as to the nature of the issues that had to be addressed. It could not reasonably be understood as stating an opinion as to the orders that should be made.

6. In my opinion, there is no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias in my participating in the judgment of the Court. An informed, fair-minded observer could not reasonably have apprehended that I could not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues arising under the VP Act. I therefore decline to disqualify myself.