Ceccattini v ICM 2000 Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 357

Ceccattini v ICM 2000 Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 357

The referee's two procedural errors, although amounting to a denial of procedural fairness, were innocent, openly disclosed, and did not provide a reasonable basis for apprehension of bias by a fair-minded observer. There was no error in the primary judge remitting the valuation to the same referee, as circumstances did not require the appointment of a different decision-maker. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Gualtiero Ceccattini; Appellant: Emilion De Michelis; Appellant: TPC Nominees Pty Ltd; Respondent: ICM 2000 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Wespac Industries Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Bias, Referees, Procedural Fairness, Remittal
Equity Civil Procedure Natural Justice Bias Referees Procedural Fairness Remittal

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gualtiero Ceccattini

Appellant

Emilion De Michelis

Appellant

TPC Nominees Pty Ltd

Appellant

ICM 2000 Pty Ltd

Respondent

Wespac Industries Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did procedural errors by a court-appointed referee constitute a reasonable apprehension of bias?
  2. 2 Was the decision to remit the valuation issue back to the same referee contrary to law, procedural fairness, or public confidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The referee's two procedural errors, although amounting to a denial of procedural fairness, were innocent, openly disclosed, and did not provide a reasonable basis for apprehension of bias by a fair-minded observer. There was no error in the primary judge remitting the valuation to the same referee, as circumstances did not require the appointment of a different decision-maker. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.