Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235

Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds either lacked specificity or failed to identify any error of law, issue of principle, public importance, or clear injustice. Allegations of bias were unsupported by evidence beyond adverse rulings. No special procedural treatment was warranted for the applicant as a self-represented litigant. The applicant's written submissions were noncompliant with procedural rules and oppressive in length and form. Thus, the application for leave to appeal and all associated relief were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Nader Mohareb; First Respondent: Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: John Alexander Kelso; Third Respondent: Leetec Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Laurence Geoffrey Leeson; Fifth Respondent: Roderick Gerrard Smith; Sixth Respondent: Alexander Edward Kelso
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Bias (actual/apprehended), Procedural Fairness, Negligence, Litigants in Person
Civil Procedure Tort Law Leave to Appeal Bias (actual/apprehended) Procedural Fairness Negligence Litigants in Person

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 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nader Mohareb

Applicant

Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd

First Respondent

John Alexander Kelso

Second Respondent

Leetec Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Laurence Geoffrey Leeson

Fourth Respondent

Roderick Gerrard Smith

Fifth Respondent

Alexander Edward Kelso

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from orders dismissing claims in negligence and rejecting allegations of judicial bias
  2. 2 Whether grounds for recusal of trial judge on basis of actual or apprehended bias were established
  3. 3 Whether procedural rules should be relaxed for self-represented litigant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds either lacked specificity or failed to identify any error of law, issue of principle, public importance, or clear injustice. Allegations of bias were unsupported by evidence beyond adverse rulings. No special procedural treatment was warranted for the applicant as a self-represented litigant. The applicant's written submissions were noncompliant with procedural rules and oppressive in length and form. Thus, the application for leave to appeal and all associated relief were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; Notice of Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 6 July 2020 dismissed with costs.
  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.