Reid v Hubbard (No 2) [2004] FCA 180

Reid v Hubbard (No 2) [2004] FCA 180

The jurisdiction conferred by Order 62 rule 9(1) may be exercised by the Court on its own motion, and prior critical comments and directions by the Judge did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting disqualification. Procedural fairness was afforded, and the sequence of submissions appropriately allowed parties and practitioners adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

Parties
First Applicant: Susan Reid; Second Applicant: Michael James Reid (by his litigation guardian Susan Reid); First Respondent: John Harold Hubbard; Second Respondent: Esandcee Pty Ltd (ACN 073 887 822)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure (costs Motion, Disqualification) / Post Judgment, Procedural Application Relating to Costs and Disqualification
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Personal Liability of Legal Practitioners for Costs, Apprehended Bias, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Personal Liability of Legal Practitioners for Costs Apprehended Bias Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Reid

First Applicant

Michael James Reid (by his litigation guardian Susan Reid)

Second Applicant

John Harold Hubbard

First Respondent

Esandcee Pty Ltd (ACN 073 887 822)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure (costs Motion, Disqualification) / Post Judgment, Procedural Application Relating to Costs and Disqualification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis and/or against legal practitioners personally
  2. 2 Whether the Court can invoke Order 62 rule 9(1) Federal Court Rules of its own motion
  3. 3 Whether there are grounds for disqualification on the basis of apprehended bias

Ratio Decidendi

The jurisdiction conferred by Order 62 rule 9(1) may be exercised by the Court on its own motion, and prior critical comments and directions by the Judge did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting disqualification. Procedural fairness was afforded, and the sequence of submissions appropriately allowed parties and practitioners adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The motion filed on 24 February 2004 is dismissed
  • Submissions of the appellants and solicitors and counsel to be filed and served by 9 March 2004, and those of the second respondent by 19 March 2004