Liristis and Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557

Liristis and Anor v White [2024] NSWDC 557

The Court held that Mr Liristis was not entitled to recusal as there was no evidence of actual or apprehended bias, and that his criticisms went to competence or misunderstanding, not bias. The Summons filed on 29 October 2024 was commenced by Mr Liristis (or at his instigation), constituted an unreasonable successive application after a prior one had been determined, and was arguably an abuse of process. There was no new evidence or change of circumstances justifying the successive application. The Court granted leave to discontinue subject to the usual order as to costs, i.e., the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs as assessed or agreed, finding no reason to disturb the usual rule....

Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Tony Liristis; Plaintiff: Infinity Group of Companies Ta's Austral Agistment and Animal Shelter; Defendant: Mr Brian White
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (leave to Discontinue and Costs)
Outcome
Application to discontinue allowed; costs to defendant
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Recusal of Judge, Discontinuance, Costs Consequences, Successive Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Transfer of Proceedings Recusal of Judge Discontinuance Costs Consequences Successive Interlocutory Applications

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Tony Liristis

Plaintiff

Infinity Group of Companies Ta's Austral Agistment and Animal Shelter

Plaintiff

Mr Brian White

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (leave to Discontinue and Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court should recuse itself due to actual or apprehended bias
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to discontinue proceedings and with what costs consequences
  3. 3 Whether filing successive proceedings/transfer applications constituted abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Mr Liristis was not entitled to recusal as there was no evidence of actual or apprehended bias, and that his criticisms went to competence or misunderstanding, not bias. The Summons filed on 29 October 2024 was commenced by Mr Liristis (or at his instigation), constituted an unreasonable successive application after a prior one had been determined, and was arguably an abuse of process. There was no new evidence or change of circumstances justifying the successive application. The Court granted leave to discontinue subject to the usual order as to costs, i.e., the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs as assessed or agreed, finding no reason to disturb the usual rule....

Court Disposition

Application to discontinue allowed; costs to defendant

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the plaintiff to discontinue the Summons filed on 29 October 2024 in proceeding 2024/00400930 on the term that he pays the defendant's costs, as assessed (or as agreed).