Harper v Wallaby Grip Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWDDT 24

Harper v Wallaby Grip Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWDDT 24

The first and second defendants did not demonstrate any ground on which a reasonable apprehension or perception of bias could exist. Acting Judge Little's prior association, consisting of having once appeared as counsel for either or both of them and for at least one defendant sued with either or both of them, was not such as to require disqualification, particularly where the issues for determination were limited to exposure to asbestos and damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Proceedings Concerning Alleged Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma / Oral Application by the First and Second Defendants for an Order That a Judge Other Than Acting Judge Little Hear the Case
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['apprehension of Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'expedition of Urgent Proceedings' 'costs']
['dust Diseases' 'civil Procedure'] ['apprehension of Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'mesothelioma' 'asbestos Exposure' 'expedition of Urgent Proceedings' 'costs']

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

Dust Diseases Proceedings Concerning Alleged Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma / Oral Application by the First and Second Defendants for an Order That a Judge Other Than Acting Judge Little Hear the Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second defendants demonstrated a reasonable apprehension or perception of bias sufficient to prevent Acting Judge Little hearing the case.' 'Whether the oral application should be refused and costs ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second defendants did not demonstrate any ground on which a reasonable apprehension or perception of bias could exist. Acting Judge Little's prior association, consisting of having once appeared as counsel for either or both of them and for at least one defendant sued with either or both of them, was not such as to require disqualification, particularly where the issues for determination were limited to exposure to asbestos and damages.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The oral application that a judge other than Acting Judge Little hear the case is dismissed.' "The first and second defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of this application."]