Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2011] NSWSC 1436

Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2011] NSWSC 1436

The judge found that none of the grounds advanced, whether for apprehended or actual bias, were substantiated by the conduct or rulings in the proceedings. The complaints related to case management, refusal of evidence, and disagreements with procedural directions did not amount to proper grounds for disqualification. Consistent application of rules and the need for efficient case management outweighed the unsupported perceptions of bias.

Parties
Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Dragan Markisic; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Oliver Markisic; Second Cross Defendant: The Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Applications for Judicial Disqualification
Outcome
Applications for disqualification are refused.
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Judges, Apprehended Bias, Actual Bias, Vexatious Proceedings, Case Management
Civil Procedure Disqualification of Judges Apprehended Bias Actual Bias Vexatious Proceedings Case Management

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Dragan Markisic

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Oliver Markisic

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

The Commonwealth of Australia

Second Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Rulings / Interlocutory Applications for Judicial Disqualification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should be disqualified for apprehended bias or actual bias
  2. 2 Whether refusal of subpoenas, warrants, and certain procedural latitude evidences bias
  3. 3 Whether rulings contrary to unrepresented litigants' requests support disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that none of the grounds advanced, whether for apprehended or actual bias, were substantiated by the conduct or rulings in the proceedings. The complaints related to case management, refusal of evidence, and disagreements with procedural directions did not amount to proper grounds for disqualification. Consistent application of rules and the need for efficient case management outweighed the unsupported perceptions of bias.

Court Disposition

Applications for disqualification are refused.

Orders

  • Each application for disqualification brought by the defendants is refused.