Randren House Pty Ltd v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 185

Randren House Pty Ltd v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 185

The recusal application was dismissed because the Applicants did not establish any reasonable apprehension of bias. A bare jurisdictional challenge to the acting judge's authority was not properly part of a recusal application and, in any event, had no logical connection with apprehended bias; s 11(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 empowered an acting judge to exercise the functions of a judge and be deemed a judge. The possibility of reappointment or permanent appointment did not, without evidence suggesting otherwise, give rise to a reasonable apprehension that an acting judge would favour the State, given the duties, safeguards, public scrutiny and professional obligations...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings; Recusal Application / Notice of Motion Filed 27 November 2017 Seeking an Order Recusing Molesworth AJ From the Trial of the Matter
Outcome
Applicants' Notice of Motion for recusal dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay Respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion; matter listed for directions hearing.
Legal Topics
['recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'acting Judges' 'institutional Integrity' 'judicial Review' 'water Sharing Plans' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'environmental and Planning Law'] ['recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'acting Judges' 'institutional Integrity' 'judicial Review' 'water Sharing Plans' '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

Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings; Recusal Application / Notice of Motion Filed 27 November 2017 Seeking an Order Recusing Molesworth AJ From the Trial of the Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the recusal application could include a jurisdictional challenge to the authority of an acting judge to hear and dispose of the trial.' 'Whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that an acting judge would not bring an impartial mind to proceedings involving the State because of the possibility of reappointment or permanent appointment by the State.' 'Whether statements and rulings in an earlier interlocutory judgment, including statements about the central nature of the judicial review proceedings and rulings on amendment and a notice to produce, gave rise to apprehended bias by prejudgment.' "Whether the Applicants should pay the Respondents' costs of the recusal motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The recusal application was dismissed because the Applicants did not establish any reasonable apprehension of bias. A bare jurisdictional challenge to the acting judge's authority was not properly part of a recusal application and, in any event, had no logical connection with apprehended bias; s 11(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 empowered an acting judge to exercise the functions of a judge and be deemed a judge. The possibility of reappointment or permanent appointment did not, without evidence suggesting otherwise, give rise to a reasonable apprehension that an acting judge would favour the State, given the duties, safeguards, public scrutiny and professional obligations...

Court Disposition

Applicants' Notice of Motion for recusal dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay Respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion; matter listed for directions hearing.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants' Notice of Motion filed 27 November 2017 is dismissed." "The Applicants are to pay the Respondents' costs of the Notice of Motion as agreed or assessed." 'The matter is listed for a directions hearing before Molesworth AJ on 16 February 2018.']