Jury v Westpac Banking Corporation Jury, Houda v Westpac Banking Corporation [1998] FCA 228

Jury v Westpac Banking Corporation Jury, Houda v Westpac Banking Corporation [1998] FCA 228

Fair-minded people would not reasonably apprehend or suspect that Rolfe J's earlier role as counsel in proceedings concerning Mr Whitbread would or might cause him to prejudge Mr Whitbread's veracity as a witness in the appellants' case. His prior submissions about the strength of a documentary Crown case did not amount to a finding of guilt or show that he had formed a disqualifying view. The appeals against the sequestration orders therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sequestration Orders Made on Creditor's Petitions / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Each appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'waiver' 'sequestration Orders' "creditor's Petitions"]
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'waiver' 'sequestration Orders' "creditor's Petitions"]

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

Appeal Against Sequestration Orders Made on Creditor's Petitions / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court should have acted on judgments entered by Rolfe J because he should have disqualified himself for apprehended bias.' "Whether the circumstances considered by a fair-minded observer included counsel's statements that the judge's prior involvement did not cause concern." 'Whether apprehended bias could be waived and, if so, whether it was waived.']

Ratio Decidendi

Fair-minded people would not reasonably apprehend or suspect that Rolfe J's earlier role as counsel in proceedings concerning Mr Whitbread would or might cause him to prejudge Mr Whitbread's veracity as a witness in the appellants' case. His prior submissions about the strength of a documentary Crown case did not amount to a finding of guilt or show that he had formed a disqualifying view. The appeals against the sequestration orders therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Each appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Each appeal be dismissed with costs.']