Harris v Bellemore (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 878

Harris v Bellemore (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 878

The trial judge is not precluded from determining the questions remitted by the Court of Appeal despite previously expressing doubts on the same issues, as those doubts did not amount to final findings. There is no reasonable apprehension of bias given the judge has had the benefit of appellate correction, and the Court of Appeal's remitter specifically empowered the judge to decide the outstanding issues.

Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Harris; Defendant: Michael Bellemore
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Have Proceedings Referred for Hearing by Another Judge Prior to Remitter Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to have proceedings referred for hearing by another judge refused
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Apprehended Bias, Remittal After Appeal, Powers of Trial Judge, Medical Negligence
Courts and Judicial System Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Apprehended Bias Remittal After Appeal Powers of Trial Judge Medical Negligence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Harris

Plaintiff

Michael Bellemore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Have Proceedings Referred for Hearing by Another Judge Prior to Remitter Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge may determine questions remitted by Court of Appeal after previous findings on related issues
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in remitting to the same judge who previously heard the matter
  3. 3 Whether it would be acting beyond power for trial judge to rehear a matter already determined in part

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge is not precluded from determining the questions remitted by the Court of Appeal despite previously expressing doubts on the same issues, as those doubts did not amount to final findings. There is no reasonable apprehension of bias given the judge has had the benefit of appellate correction, and the Court of Appeal's remitter specifically empowered the judge to decide the outstanding issues.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to have proceedings referred for hearing by another judge refused

Orders

  • Application to refer proceedings to another judge refused