Young v King (No 14) [2018] NSWLEC 162

Young v King (No 14) [2018] NSWLEC 162

The recusal application was refused because the established test for apprehended bias (the 'double might' test) was not met; no substantial ground for disqualification was shown, and prior judicial criticism did not amount to prejudgment. The evidence supporting the gross sum costs application was thorough, logical, and fair, with no disputation of charge rates by the respondents; the Court was satisfied that a gross sum of $125,016.20 was appropriate in satisfaction of the personal costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Motion in Class 4 Proceedings / Post Judgment: Determination of Gross Sum Costs Order and Recusal Application
Outcome
Recusal application dismissed; gross sum costs order granted in favour of Warwick Davies; specific sum awarded; respondents to pay additional costs.
Legal Topics
['costs—gross Sum Orders' 'recusal—apprehended Bias' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'legal Profession'] ['costs—gross Sum Orders' 'recusal—apprehended Bias' 'indemnity Costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Motion in Class 4 Proceedings / Post Judgment: Determination of Gross Sum Costs Order and Recusal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should the judge recuse himself from hearing the gross sum costs application due to alleged apprehended bias?' 'Should a gross sum costs order be made in satisfaction of the personal costs order in favour of Warwick Davies?']

Ratio Decidendi

The recusal application was refused because the established test for apprehended bias (the 'double might' test) was not met; no substantial ground for disqualification was shown, and prior judicial criticism did not amount to prejudgment. The evidence supporting the gross sum costs application was thorough, logical, and fair, with no disputation of charge rates by the respondents; the Court was satisfied that a gross sum of $125,016.20 was appropriate in satisfaction of the personal costs order.

Court Disposition

Recusal application dismissed; gross sum costs order granted in favour of Warwick Davies; specific sum awarded; respondents to pay additional costs.

Orders

  • ['The recusal application filed 5 October 2017 is dismissed.' "Leonardo Carlo Muriniti and Robert Duane Newell are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Warwick Davies's costs of that recusal application." 'Davies’s application for a gross sum costs order pursuant to s 98(4)(c) Civil Procedure Act 2005 is granted.'...