Sturesteps v Khoury (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1525

Sturesteps v Khoury (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1525

There is no logical connection between the Judge’s prior public identification with allegations against counsel in unrelated proceedings and the possibility of deviation from deciding the present procedural applications on their merits; therefore, apprehended bias is not established and recusal is not required.

Parties
First Plaintiff: George Osvald Sturesteps; Second Plaintiff: Beryl Donna Sturesteps; First Defendant: Dieb Peter Khoury; Second Defendant: Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure – Equity / Recusal Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Recusal Application, Apprehended Bias, Procedural Applications
Civil Procedure Equity Recusal Application Apprehended Bias Procedural Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Osvald Sturesteps

First Plaintiff

Beryl Donna Sturesteps

Second Plaintiff

Dieb Peter Khoury

First Defendant

Benjamin & Khoury Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure – Equity / Recusal Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Judge should recuse himself due to apprehended bias
  2. 2 Whether Judge's prior involvement as counsel in unrelated proceedings involving current junior counsel requires recusal

Ratio Decidendi

There is no logical connection between the Judge’s prior public identification with allegations against counsel in unrelated proceedings and the possibility of deviation from deciding the present procedural applications on their merits; therefore, apprehended bias is not established and recusal is not required.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application for recusal is dismissed.
  • The defendants' costs of the recusal application will be the defendants' costs in the interlocutory applications.