Bakarich v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 3) [2012] NSWCA 391

Bakarich v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 3) [2012] NSWCA 391

Application for recusal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a logical connection between the asserted facts and the possibility of bias; prior reasons in the 2010 Recusal Judgment were equally or more applicable and nothing new was raised to warrant a different outcome.

Parties
First Appellant: Anthony George Bakarich as Executor of the estate of the late Mary Patricia Bakarich; Second Appellant: Anthony George Bakarich as Representative of the estate of the late Allan John Bakarich; Third Appellant: Anthony George Bakarich; Fourth Appellant: Vitlern Pty Limited; Fifth Appellant: A Bakarich Industries Pty Limited; Respondent: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Recuse Judge (ostensible Bias)
Outcome
Application to recuse refused
Legal Topics
Recusal, Ostensible Bias, Logical Connection in Bias Applications
Courts and Judges Recusal Ostensible Bias Logical Connection in Bias 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony George Bakarich as Executor of the estate of the late Mary Patricia Bakarich

First Appellant

Anthony George Bakarich as Representative of the estate of the late Allan John Bakarich

Second Appellant

Anthony George Bakarich

Third Appellant

Vitlern Pty Limited

Fourth Appellant

A Bakarich Industries Pty Limited

Fifth Appellant

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Recuse Judge (ostensible Bias)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge should recuse himself for ostensible bias where no logical connection is demonstrated between the alleged facts and the possibility of bias.

Ratio Decidendi

Application for recusal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a logical connection between the asserted facts and the possibility of bias; prior reasons in the 2010 Recusal Judgment were equally or more applicable and nothing new was raised to warrant a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Application to recuse refused

Orders

  • Application for Justice Campbell to recuse himself is refused.