Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No. 9)

The proceedings involved an application by the applicant, Ms. Teoh, seeking the disqualification of Sackville AJA from participating in further judgment concerning matters arising under the Voluntary Purchasing Act (VP Act). The dispute centred on an apprehension of bias arising from a comment made by Sackville AJA during a hearing on 18 December 2013.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Sackville AJA's comment gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, thereby necessitating his disqualification from the proceedings. The applicant argued that the comment indicated a pre-judgment on the merits of the VP Act application, suggesting that Sackville AJA had already formed an opinion on whether orders should be made.

Sackville AJA reasoned that the comment in question was a response to the applicant's submissions, which appeared to be an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined by the Court. The comment was intended to clarify the purpose of the applicant's written submissions under the VP Act, directing her attention to the specific issues requiring consideration, rather than expressing a view on the ultimate outcome. Applying the test of an informed, fair-minded observer, Sackville AJA concluded that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, as the comment could not be understood as indicating a pre-determined view on the orders to be made.

Consequently, the application for disqualification was refused.