Makucha v Sydney Water Corporation (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 249

A stay of the proceedings was refused because prospects of success in the application for leave to appeal were not strong and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the ongoing trial to proceed to completion rather than granting a disruptive interlocutory stay.

Parties: Applicant: Paul Makucha; First Respondent: Sydney Water Corporation; Second Respondent: Justice Sackar
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 22 August 2011
Procedural Posture: Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Leave to Appeal / Application for Stay Decided
Outcome: Stay of proceedings refused; applicant required to pay costs of the motion for a stay.
Legal Topics: Recusal of Judge, Apprehended Bias, Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Appeal

Civil Procedure Recusal of Judge Apprehended Bias Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Paul Makucha

Applicant

Sydney Water Corporation

First Respondent

Justice Sackar

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Leave to Appeal / Application for Stay Decided

Legal Issues

1 Whether a stay should be granted pending application for leave to appeal concerning judge's refusal to recuse for apprehended bias
2 Whether it is proper for a judge to determine his own recusal application

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings refused; applicant required to pay costs of the motion for a stay.

Orders

Motion to stay the proceedings in the Equity Division pending determination of the application for leave to appeal refused.
Applicant to pay the costs of the motion for a stay.