Do v Kolsumdet Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 592

Do v Kolsumdet Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 592

The application for recusal was dismissed as there was no sufficient identification of any factor in the judge’s preliminary views which would cause a fair-minded observer to apprehend bias. All views were expressed in the context of urging mediation and being preliminary, capable of change. There was no logical connection demonstrated between those remarks and deviation from deciding the case on its merits.

Parties
First Applicant: Jennifer Do; Second Applicant: Belinda Nguyen; Third Applicant: Julie Nguyen; First Respondent: Kolsumdet Pty Ltd ACN 150 631 333 Trading as Silver Pearl (Dai Lam Son) Seafood Restaurant; Second Respondent: Bailey Wang; Third Respondent: Lian Chaisumdet; Fourth Respondent: Salie Chen; Fifth Respondent: Nang Chaisumdet; Sixth Respondent: Hanh To
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (recusal in Defamation Proceeding) / Application for Recusal, Determination and Directions Given During Procedural Management
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed, applicants to pay respondents' costs
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Defamation, Apprehended Bias
Practice and Procedure Recusal of Judge Defamation Apprehended Bias

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Do

First Applicant

Belinda Nguyen

Second Applicant

Julie Nguyen

Third Applicant

Kolsumdet Pty Ltd ACN 150 631 333 Trading as Silver Pearl (Dai Lam Son) Seafood Restaurant

First Respondent

Bailey Wang

Second Respondent

Lian Chaisumdet

Third Respondent

Salie Chen

Fourth Respondent

Nang Chaisumdet

Fifth Respondent

Hanh To

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (recusal in Defamation Proceeding) / Application for Recusal, Determination and Directions Given During Procedural Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fair‑minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the docket judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues at trial (recusal for apprehended bias)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for recusal was dismissed as there was no sufficient identification of any factor in the judge’s preliminary views which would cause a fair-minded observer to apprehend bias. All views were expressed in the context of urging mediation and being preliminary, capable of change. There was no logical connection demonstrated between those remarks and deviation from deciding the case on its merits.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed, applicants to pay respondents' costs

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application filed by the applicants and dated 19 May 2023 be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to that application.