Dahler v Australian Capital Territory [2014] FCA 946

Dahler v Australian Capital Territory [2014] FCA 946

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the challenged interlocutory decisions was shown to be attended with sufficient doubt and, where arguable doubt existed about the costs order in favour of CPM Reviews, no substantial injustice would result. The earlier criticisms of counsel did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias because no logical connection was shown with the issues to be determined in the applicant's case. The refusal to award costs against the respondents was not shown to be wrong because their position on the proper respondent was not unreasonable for s 570 purposes. The application to re-join CPM Reviews was properly rejected because no reasonably arguable case...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions of the Federal Circuit Court in a Fair Work Act General Protections Proceeding / Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['actual and Apprehended Bias' 'recusal' 'general Protections Adverse Action' 'accessorial Liability' 'joinder of Parties' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'costs in Fair Work Proceedings' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions']
['employment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'judicial Bias' 'costs'] ['actual and Apprehended Bias' 'recusal' 'general Protections Adverse Action' 'accessorial Liability' 'joinder of Parties' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'costs in Fair Work Proceedings' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions of the Federal Circuit Court in a Fair Work Act General Protections Proceeding / Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court judge erred in refusing to recuse himself for actual or apprehended bias arising from criticisms of counsel in an earlier judgment.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal the refusal to award the applicant costs in relation to applications concerning the proper naming or addition of respondents.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal the refusal to re-join CPM Reviews Pty Ltd as a respondent and the costs order made in its favour.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal orders striking out large parts of the statement of claim and the whole reply.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the challenged interlocutory decisions was shown to be attended with sufficient doubt and, where arguable doubt existed about the costs order in favour of CPM Reviews, no substantial injustice would result. The earlier criticisms of counsel did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias because no logical connection was shown with the issues to be determined in the applicant's case. The refusal to award costs against the respondents was not shown to be wrong because their position on the proper respondent was not unreasonable for s 570 purposes. The application to re-join CPM Reviews was properly rejected because no reasonably arguable case...

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal filed on 14 August 2014 be dismissed.' 'If CPM Reviews Pty Ltd intends to press its application for costs and if the respondents also seek costs, any such application be made in writing, supported by submissions no longer than two (2) pages, and filed and served within seven (7)...