Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5)

In the case of Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5), the primary issue before the court was whether the judge should recuse himself from hearing a special costs application filed against the solicitors who represented the unsuccessful party in earlier proceedings. The applicant, Ms Young, sought to have the judge recuse himself on the basis of apprehended bias, citing adverse findings made in a previous judgment and the manner in which they were expressed. The court was required to determine whether there was any proper basis for the assertion that an impartial mind could not or would not be brought to the task at hand.

The court considered the legal principles governing recusal applications and examined the submissions made by the Solicitors. The court found that the recusal application did not identify any proper basis for asserting that an impartial mind could not or would not be brought to the task at hand. The submissions raised objections to adverse findings being made in the previous judgment and the way in which they were expressed, but did not establish a coherent basis for recusal. The court concluded that the recusal application as brought should fail.

However, the court also considered the possibility of independent recusal. Upon reviewing the submissions made by the Solicitors, the judge felt compelled to recuse himself on his own initiative. The court found that the form and content of the Solicitors' submissions on the special costs application made it clear that they had a sound and cogent case, independent of any client instructions. The judge could no longer retain an open mind in the face of such absurd and inaccurate submissions. Consequently, the judge independently recused himself from hearing the special costs application.

The court dismissed the interlocutory application for recusal and ordered that the costs of the recusal application be costs of the special costs application. The court noted that the judge would deliver reasons for recusal after the special costs application had been heard and determined. The hearing of the special costs application was confirmed for hearing on 27 April 2017, but before Justice Lee.