Gillies v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 1058

Gillies v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 1058

The recusal application was refused because the plaintiff did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias. The earlier Eastlake and Moir judgments did not involve findings about the plaintiff's truthfulness, credibility or accuracy relevant to the current Motions, their dispositive reasoning turned on legal issues such as bankruptcy standing and limitation periods, there was no commonality between the decided issues and the issues on the current Motions, and there was no cogent basis to conclude that the judge's mind was closed or that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Common Law Proceedings / Oral Application by the Plaintiff That Garling J Recuse Himself From Hearing Five Notices of Motion Listed for Hearing
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of each defendant of the application.
Legal Topics
['recusal' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'summary Judgment' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'costs']
['courts and Judges' 'civil Procedure'] ['recusal' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'summary Judgment' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling in Common Law Proceedings / Oral Application by the Plaintiff That Garling J Recuse Himself From Hearing Five Notices of Motion Listed for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should recuse himself on the ground of actual bias arising from two earlier judgments involving the plaintiff.' 'Whether the judge should recuse himself on the ground of apprehended bias arising from two earlier judgments involving the plaintiff.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs of the recusal application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The recusal application was refused because the plaintiff did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias. The earlier Eastlake and Moir judgments did not involve findings about the plaintiff's truthfulness, credibility or accuracy relevant to the current Motions, their dispositive reasoning turned on legal issues such as bankruptcy standing and limitation periods, there was no commonality between the decided issues and the issues on the current Motions, and there was no cogent basis to conclude that the judge's mind was closed or that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of each defendant of the application.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application made by plaintiff that I recuse myself from hearing the Notices of Motions presently listed before me.' 'Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of each defendant of the application.']