Soulis v R & A Henry Auto Repairs & Ors (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 966

Soulis v R & A Henry Auto Repairs & Ors (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 966

Having reviewed the material, including the transcript of the previous occasion, the Court held that none of the plaintiff's assertions in support of recusal could be made out; there was no demonstrated actual bias and nothing said or done by the judge met the objective test for apprehended bias, so the judge declined to recuse himself.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Pursuant to S 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Recusal Application and Directions for Hearing of Notices of Motion
Outcome
Application for recusal declined; directions made for the hearing of the plaintiff's and defendants' notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['recusal Application' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'summary Dismissal' 'directions']
['practice and Procedure'] ['recusal Application' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'summary Dismissal' 'directions']

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

Proceedings Pursuant to S 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Recusal Application and Directions for Hearing of Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should recuse himself from further hearing of the proceedings on the basis of alleged actual and apprehended bias.' "What directions should be made for the hearing of the plaintiff's notice of motion and the defendants' notice of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Having reviewed the material, including the transcript of the previous occasion, the Court held that none of the plaintiff's assertions in support of recusal could be made out; there was no demonstrated actual bias and nothing said or done by the judge met the objective test for apprehended bias, so the judge declined to recuse himself.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal declined; directions made for the hearing of the plaintiff's and defendants' notices of motion.

Orders

  • ["I fix the hearing of the plaintiff's notice of motion of 27 April 2022, and the first, second and third defendants' motion of 26 May 2022, before me on 30 June 2022." 'I direct the first, second and third defendants to file all evidence in support of their notice of motion by 7 June 2022.' "I direct the plaintiff...