Ozmen v Culture Map Pty Ltd (No 1) [2020] FCA 1890

Ozmen v Culture Map Pty Ltd (No 1) [2020] FCA 1890

There is no reasonable basis for a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues in the proceeding, and the recusal application is dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: Mert Acun Ozmen; Second Applicant: Kartal Altikulacoglu; Third Applicant: Ozmen Entertainment Group Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Culture Map Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Nguyen (John) Le; Third Respondent: Eric Woo; Fourth Respondent: Gunay Koyunoglu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Recusal / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Apprehension of Bias, Impartiality of Judges
Practice and Procedure Recusal of Judge Apprehension of Bias Impartiality of Judges

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mert Acun Ozmen

First Applicant

Kartal Altikulacoglu

Second Applicant

Ozmen Entertainment Group Pty Ltd

Third Applicant

Culture Map Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Nguyen (John) Le

Second Respondent

Eric Woo

Third Respondent

Gunay Koyunoglu

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Recusal / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fair-minded lay observer might perceive that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to resolution of issues in the proceeding;
  2. 2 Whether conduct during proceedings gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias;

Ratio Decidendi

There is no reasonable basis for a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues in the proceeding, and the recusal application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The first and third respondents' interlocutory application for recusal dated 28 August 2020 be dismissed with costs.