Rahman v Dubs [2012] NSWCA 98

Rahman v Dubs [2012] NSWCA 98

The notice of motion was dismissed because Mr Rahman identified no basis under rr 36.15 or 36.16 for setting aside the Court of Appeal orders of 28 May 2010. His allegations of bias, invalid constitution of the Court, defects in McCallum J's orders, and general assertions that the orders were wrong or unlawful were irrelevant, unsupported, or legally insufficient, and no r 36.15 criterion of irregularity, illegality or want of good faith was satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Court of Appeal Orders Made on 28 May 2010
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Rr 36.15 and 36.16' 'judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'constitution of the Court of Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['setting Aside Orders' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Rr 36.15 and 36.16' 'judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'constitution of the Court of Appeal']

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

Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Court of Appeal Orders Made on 28 May 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the orders made by Hodgson JA and Tobias JA on 28 May 2010 should be set aside under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 36.15 or 36.16.' 'Whether prior participation by Hodgson JA or Tobias AJA in matters involving Mr Rahman required disqualification for bias or apprehended bias.' "Whether alleged defects in McCallum J's interlocutory orders provided a basis to set aside the Court of Appeal orders of 28 May 2010." 'Whether the Court of Appeal was validly constituted by two Judges of Appeal to hear the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the present Court was properly constituted to hear the notice of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because Mr Rahman identified no basis under rr 36.15 or 36.16 for setting aside the Court of Appeal orders of 28 May 2010. His allegations of bias, invalid constitution of the Court, defects in McCallum J's orders, and general assertions that the orders were wrong or unlawful were irrelevant, unsupported, or legally insufficient, and no r 36.15 criterion of irregularity, illegality or want of good faith was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion of 4 July 2011 is dismissed.' "Mr Rahman, the applicant, is ordered to pay the respondents' costs of that motion."]