Hunter’s Hill Council v Cavasinni [2017] NSWLEC 28

Hunter’s Hill Council v Cavasinni [2017] NSWLEC 28

The judge’s questioning and observations during the pre-trial mention were in accordance with ordinary judicial practice to clarify issues and do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a fair-minded lay observer. There was no actual or apprehended bias established, and thus, the application for recusal is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Hunter's Hill Council; First Respondent: Maria Cavasinni; Second Respondent: Francesco Cavasinni
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Recusal / Interlocutory/preliminary Motion (notice of Motion to Recuse Judge)
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apprehension of Bias, Actual Bias, Judicial Recusal, Pre Trial Procedure
Practice and Procedure Apprehension of Bias Actual Bias Judicial Recusal Pre Trial Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hunter's Hill Council

Applicant

Maria Cavasinni

First Respondent

Francesco Cavasinni

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Recusal / Interlocutory/preliminary Motion (notice of Motion to Recuse Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether comments made by the judge during a pre-trial mention give rise to actual or apprehended bias requiring recusal

Ratio Decidendi

The judge’s questioning and observations during the pre-trial mention were in accordance with ordinary judicial practice to clarify issues and do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a fair-minded lay observer. There was no actual or apprehended bias established, and thus, the application for recusal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion for recusal dismissed

Orders

  • The Respondents' notice of motion filed 10 April 2017 is dismissed.