Jensen Laundry Systems Australia Pty Ltd v Raskopoulos [2015] NSWCA 352

Jensen Laundry Systems Australia Pty Ltd v Raskopoulos [2015] NSWCA 352

Leave to appeal was refused because the joinder and adjournment orders were interlocutory matters of practice and procedure, raised no novel question of general importance, disclosed no obvious error in the exercise of discretion, and an appeal would have no apparent utility. Leave and an extension of time in relation to the disqualification ruling were also refused because it was speculative whether Adams J would be the trial judge and the applicants did not articulate any logical connection between the conduct relied on and a possible departure from impartial decision-making; the conduct did not support actual or apprehended bias.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders / Court of Appeal Summons for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Applicants' summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'joinder' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'reasons for Interlocutory Orders']
['procedure' 'civil Litigation' 'judicial Bias and Disqualification'] ['leave to Appeal' 'joinder' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'reasons for Interlocutory Orders']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders / Court of Appeal Summons for Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from interlocutory orders allowing joinder of additional defendants and vacating the trial date.' "Whether the primary judge's exercise of discretion in allowing joinder and adjourning the proceedings disclosed obvious error." 'Whether absence of reasons for the joinder and adjournment orders caused substantial injustice in the circumstances.' "Whether leave and an extension of time should be granted to appeal from dismissal of the applicants' application that the primary judge disqualify himself for actual or apprehended bias."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the joinder and adjournment orders were interlocutory matters of practice and procedure, raised no novel question of general importance, disclosed no obvious error in the exercise of discretion, and an appeal would have no apparent utility. Leave and an extension of time in relation to the disqualification ruling were also refused because it was speculative whether Adams J would be the trial judge and the applicants did not articulate any logical connection between the conduct relied on and a possible departure from impartial decision-making; the conduct did not support actual or apprehended bias.

Court Disposition

Applicants' summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the applicants' summons." "Order the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the summons on the ordinary basis."]