Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Markisic [2012] NSWSC 510

The application for disqualification was refused because the defendants' arguments misapplied the relevant statutory and procedural rules, and there was no objective basis for apprehended bias, prejudgment, or demonstrated incompetence in the delivery of the earlier judgment.

Parties: Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales; First Defendant/first Cross Claimant: Dragan Markisic; Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant: Oliver Markisic; Second Cross Defendant: The Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 17 May 2012
Procedural Posture: Procedural Application / Ruling on Disqualification Application
Outcome: Application is refused.
Legal Topics: Courts and Judges Generally, Disqualification, Apprehended Bias

Procedure Courts and Judges Generally Disqualification 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales

Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Dragan Markisic

First Defendant/first Cross Claimant

Oliver Markisic

Second Defendant/second Cross Claimant

The Commonwealth of Australia

Second Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Application / Ruling on Disqualification Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the judge should disqualify herself for apprehended bias, prejudgment, or incompetence in the delivery of a prior judgment
2 Requirements for delivery of judgments under Evidence Act 1995 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application is refused.