Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 690

Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 690

The recusal application as brought failed because it identified no proper basis for asserting that Justice Bromwich could not or would not bring an impartial mind to the special costs application; it rose no higher than objection to adverse findings and the way they were expressed in the September judgment. However, after considering the Solicitors' own submissions, Justice Bromwich independently concluded that he no longer had any residual capacity to bring an impartial mind to the competence and propriety of the Solicitors' conduct, a fact directly in issue in the special costs application, and therefore arranged for that application to be heard by another judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Recusal in Relation to an Interlocutory Application for a Special Costs Order / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The recusal application dated 11 April 2017 was dismissed, but Justice Bromwich independently recused himself from hearing the special costs application.
Legal Topics
['recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'special Costs Application Against Solicitors' 'bankruptcy Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'general and Personal Insolvency'] ['recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'special Costs Application Against Solicitors' 'bankruptcy Proceedings']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Recusal in Relation to an Interlocutory Application for a Special Costs Order / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Justice Bromwich should recuse himself from hearing the special costs application because of apprehended bias arising from findings and language in the September judgment.' 'Whether, independently of the recusal application as brought, Justice Bromwich should recuse himself from hearing the special costs application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The recusal application as brought failed because it identified no proper basis for asserting that Justice Bromwich could not or would not bring an impartial mind to the special costs application; it rose no higher than objection to adverse findings and the way they were expressed in the September judgment. However, after considering the Solicitors' own submissions, Justice Bromwich independently concluded that he no longer had any residual capacity to bring an impartial mind to the competence and propriety of the Solicitors' conduct, a fact directly in issue in the special costs application, and therefore arranged for that application to be heard by another judge.

Court Disposition

The recusal application dated 11 April 2017 was dismissed, but Justice Bromwich independently recused himself from hearing the special costs application.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application dated 11 April 2017 (but filed on 10 April 2017) for recusal of Justice Bromwich from hearing the interlocutory application for a special costs order dated and filed 21 November 2016 be dismissed.' 'The costs of the April 2017 recusal application be costs of the special costs...