Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 7)

Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 7) involved an application for the recusal of the trial judge based on an alleged apprehended bias. The applicants, Charif and Adam, contended that the judge's decisions in previous judgments in the same proceedings displayed a bias against them. They argued this bias was apparent in the judge's handling of various applications and procedural decisions, suggesting that the judge had already formed adverse conclusions about them. The court was required to determine whether the judge's decisions gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court examined the principle of apprehended bias, drawing on Australian jurisprudence. It noted that the test involves whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues. The court held that in determining this, one should consider whether the judge arrived at their decisions fairly and impartially, based on an objective assessment of the evidence and legal merits. The court concluded that the judge had made the decisions impartially and without prejudgment, thus finding no basis for an apprehension of bias.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in the judge's conduct. The court emphasised that the apprehension of bias principle is about the appearance of impartiality rather than the actual thought processes of the judge. The court held that the judge's decisions were made in accordance with judicial practice and did not reflect any prejudgment of the issues. The court also issued directions for the proceeding of the interlocutory applications and costs.