ROGERS v WENTWORTH [1998] NSWCA 193

Miss Wentworth has failed to establish a firm basis for a reasonable apprehension that Judge Handley would not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues in the case. The interventions and circumstances relied upon do not meet the objective test for apparent bias or pre-judgment.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Applicant: Rogers; Respondent: Wentworth; Counsel for Rogers: Miss Lydiard; Counsel for Rogers: Miss Preston; Counsel for Wentworth: Mr Russo
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 09 October 1998
Procedural Posture: Application / Application for Disqualification of Judge for Apprehended Bias or Pre Judgment
Outcome: Application for disqualification dismissed.
Legal Topics: Bias and Prejudice, Disqualification of Judges, Appellate Procedure

Judicial Procedure Bias and Prejudice Disqualification of Judges Appellate Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2

Parties

Rogers

Applicant

Wentworth

Respondent

Miss Lydiard

Counsel for Rogers

Miss Preston

Counsel for Rogers

Mr Russo

Counsel for Wentworth

Procedural Posture

Application / Application for Disqualification of Judge for Apprehended Bias or Pre Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Judge Handley should disqualify himself for apparent bias or pre-judgment in proceedings involving Rogers and Wentworth

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for disqualification dismissed.

Orders

Motions for disqualification filed by Miss Wentworth on 2 March are dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.