Choi v NSW Ombudsman [2025] NSWCA 26

Choi v NSW Ombudsman [2025] NSWCA 26

Ms Choi failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias, as her stated grounds were based on ordinary and permissible administrative practices and historical professional relationships without the requisite logical connection to impartiality. The objections to the naming and legal representation of the NSW Ombudsman were misconceived, as the first respondent is correctly named under statute and the Crown Solicitor's Office is lawfully retained as representative. The proceedings constituted an abuse of process because Ms Choi attempted to relitigate matters already determined on their merits in prior Supreme Court proceedings. The amended summons was accordingly dismissed under r...

Parties
Applicant: Jae Hee Choi; First Respondent: NSW Ombudsman; Second Respondent: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (supervisory Jurisdiction) / Appeal Application to Court of Appeal Following Prior Supreme Court Dismissal
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed; motions dismissed; costs ordered against applicant
Legal Topics
Recusal, Apprehended Bias, Summary Dismissal, Judicial Review, Legal Representation, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Recusal Apprehended Bias Summary Dismissal Judicial Review Legal Representation Abuse of Process

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jae Hee Choi

Applicant

NSW Ombudsman

First Respondent

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (supervisory Jurisdiction) / Appeal Application to Court of Appeal Following Prior Supreme Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grounds exist for recusal of Acting Justice Griffiths for apprehended bias
  2. 2 Whether the Registrar validly substituted the name of the first respondent
  3. 3 Whether the Crown Solicitor properly represented the first respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Choi failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias, as her stated grounds were based on ordinary and permissible administrative practices and historical professional relationships without the requisite logical connection to impartiality. The objections to the naming and legal representation of the NSW Ombudsman were misconceived, as the first respondent is correctly named under statute and the Crown Solicitor's Office is lawfully retained as representative. The proceedings constituted an abuse of process because Ms Choi attempted to relitigate matters already determined on their merits in prior Supreme Court proceedings. The amended summons was accordingly dismissed under r...

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed; motions dismissed; costs ordered against applicant

Orders

  • Order under s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) that Ms Choi appear by audio-visual link from South Korea.
  • The amended summons filed 28 November 2024 is dismissed under r 13.4 of the UCPR.