Hillier v Martin (No 20) [2023] FCA 1686

Hillier v Martin (No 20) [2023] FCA 1686

The first respondent's request to vacate the hearing was refused because insufficient explanation and preparation time was available; contention for recusal was declined as no cogent basis was put forward and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Parties
Applicant: James Hillier; First Respondent: Victoria Martin; Second Respondent: Nordburger Operations Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Erik Vari Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Stephen Bradley Williams; Fifth Respondent: Norman Waterhouse (A Firm); Sixth Respondent: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing on Procedural Requests
Outcome
Requests refused, hearing adjourned part-heard
Legal Topics
Recusal and Impartiality of Judge, Vacating Hearing Date, Legal Professional Privilege, Case Management
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Recusal and Impartiality of Judge Vacating Hearing Date Legal Professional Privilege Case Management

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hillier

Applicant

Victoria Martin

First Respondent

Nordburger Operations Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Erik Vari Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Stephen Bradley Williams

Fourth Respondent

Norman Waterhouse (A Firm)

Fifth Respondent

Norman Waterhouse Lawyers Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing on Procedural Requests

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing date should be vacated
  2. 2 Whether the judge should recuse himself due to apprehended bias

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's request to vacate the hearing was refused because insufficient explanation and preparation time was available; contention for recusal was declined as no cogent basis was put forward and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Court Disposition

Requests refused, hearing adjourned part-heard

Orders

  • The first respondent's request to vacate the hearing is refused.
  • The first respondent's contention for judge recusal is declined.