Shaw v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] NSWSC 256
The earlier judgments did not turn on personal considerations concerning any member of the Shaw family, contested evidence, or any issue of credit, but on the legal question whether the caveat showed a caveatable interest; therefore a properly informed and objective bystander could not apprehend bias.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Judicial Disqualification for Apparent Bias / Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Disqualification for bias refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['judicial Disqualification' 'apparent Bias' 'previous Decision on Similar Legal Question']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Disqualification for Apparent Bias / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the judge should disqualify himself for apparent bias because he had earlier ruled on the validity of a different caveat in similar terms lodged by the plaintiff's mother."]
Ratio Decidendi
The earlier judgments did not turn on personal considerations concerning any member of the Shaw family, contested evidence, or any issue of credit, but on the legal question whether the caveat showed a caveatable interest; therefore a properly informed and objective bystander could not apprehend bias.
Court Disposition
Disqualification for bias refused.
Orders
- ['The judge declined to discharge himself from the proceedings.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Shaw v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [1999] NSWSC 256 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : 1746/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 24 & 25 March 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 March 1999
PARTIES : George Thomas Shaw (P) Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (D) JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J
COUNSEL : Thomas Shaw, by leave (P) J White, Solicitor (D) SOLICITORS : In person (P) Kemp Strang (D) CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [5] - Courts and judges generally - Judges - Disqualification for interest or bias - In general - Ordinary rule - Reasonable expectation of adverse decision - Previous decision of same question of law. DECISION : Disqualification for bias refused.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
THURSDAY, 25 MARCH 1999
1746/99 GEORGE THOMAS SHAW v OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: 1 Mr Thomas Shaw, on behalf of the plaintiff, has applied for me to disqualify myself as being apparently biased by reason of the fact that I have earlier ruled upon the validity of a different caveat but in similar terms which had been lodged by his mother. The relevant judgments, as I apprehend it, were delivered by me on 21 December 1998. Those judgments did not turn on any personal considerations relative to any member of the Shaw family, nor was there any contested evidence in those proceedings on which it was necessary for me to come to a determination, much less any question of fact which I had to determine by reference to any issue of credit. They turned on the legal question as to whether the caveat showed a caveatable interest. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it could not appear to a properly informed and objective bystander that there was any fear that I was biased in the sense in which that term is understood in the law relating to judicial bias and I decline to discharge myself from the proceedings.
…oOo…
Last Modified: 01/04/2002 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.