VELLA -v- BOWDEN [2011] WASCA 158
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASCA 158 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:39/2011 | 24 JUNE 2011 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA MURPHY JA | 1/08/11 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOSEPH BERNARD VELLA MICHAEL JOHN BOWDEN |
Catchwords: | Courts and judges Application for coram of interstate judges to hear the appeal Reasonable apprehension of bias Application dismissed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 273 ALR 429 Heydon v NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWCA 374; (2000) 51 NSWLR 1 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 Re The State of Western Australia; Ex Parte Vella [2010] WASC 213 Vakauta v Kelly (1988) 13 NSWLR 502 Vella v Bowden [2011] WASC 78 Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129 Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 177 Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 30 Vella v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 59 Western Australia v Watson [1990] WAR 248 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : VELLA -v- BOWDEN [2011] WASCA 158 CORAM : PULLIN JA
- MURPHY JA
- Appellant
AND
MICHAEL JOHN BOWDEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : KENNETH MARTIN J
Citation : VELLA -v- MICHAEL JOHN BOWDEN OF CANNON BOWDEN & CO [2011] WASC 78
File No : CIV 1709 of 2010
Catchwords:
Courts and judges - Application for coram of interstate judges to hear the appeal - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Application dismissed
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr P D Quinlan SC
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : McCallum Donovan Sweeney
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 273 ALR 429
Heydon v NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWCA 374; (2000) 51 NSWLR 1
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Re The State of Western Australia; Ex Parte Vella [2010] WASC 213
Vakauta v Kelly (1988) 13 NSWLR 502
Vella v Bowden [2011] WASC 78
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 177
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 30
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 59
Western Australia v Watson [1990] WAR 248
(Page 3)
1 REASONS OF THE COURT: The appellant seeks an order that this appeal be heard by a coram of interstate judges. The appeal concerns the decision of Kenneth Martin J, who made an order striking out…
Continue reading Vella v Bowden
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Vella v Bowden [2011] WASCA 158
- Case
- [2011] WASCA 158
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Vella applied to the Court for an appeal to be heard by a panel of judges from New South Wales, Victoria, or Queensland. The appeal concerned a decision made by a magistrate in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Bowden opposed the application on the basis that the proposed panel of judges would create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Bowden submitted that the judges proposed by Vella had a history of decisions unfavourable to litigants in cases involving similar issues to those in the appeal. Bowden argued that Vella's application should be dismissed.
The court considered whether Bowden had established that the proposed panel of judges would create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court examined the decisions made by the proposed judges and found that there was no pattern of decisions unfavourable to litigants in cases involving similar issues. The court found that the proposed judges did not have a closed mind on the issues to be determined in the appeal and that they were willing to give the parties a fair hearing. The court dismissed the application.
The court considered whether Bowden had established that the proposed panel of judges would create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court examined the decisions made by the proposed judges and found that there was no pattern of decisions unfavourable to litigants in cases involving similar issues. The court found that the proposed judges did not have a closed mind on the issues to be determined in the appeal and that they were willing to give the parties a fair hearing. The court dismissed the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.