Eliezer v Yang [2021] NSWCA 220

Eliezer v Yang [2021] NSWCA 220

Leave to appeal was refused because the apprehended bias challenge had no realistic prospects of success and the applicant had no reasonable prospects of establishing that the earlier costs orders in favour of the lot owners were procured irregularly, illegally or against good faith. The costs orders were ordinary costs-follow-the-event orders made after unsuccessful interlocutory applications, and the alleged respondent misconduct did not affect the making of those orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Dismissing a UCPR R 36.15 Application and Refusing Disqualification for Apprehended Bias
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'setting Aside or Variation of Orders Under UCPR R 36.15' 'apprehended Bias' 'costs Orders']
['appeals' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'setting Aside or Variation of Orders Under UCPR R 36.15' 'apprehended Bias' 'costs 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 / Court of Appeal Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Dismissing a UCPR R 36.15 Application and Refusing Disqualification for Apprehended Bias

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the order dismissing the applicant's UCPR r 36.15 application to vary earlier costs orders." 'Whether the primary judge erred in refusing to disqualify himself for apprehended bias.' 'Whether the earlier costs orders were made irregularly, illegally or against good faith.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the apprehended bias challenge had no realistic prospects of success and the applicant had no reasonable prospects of establishing that the earlier costs orders in favour of the lot owners were procured irregularly, illegally or against good faith. The costs orders were ordinary costs-follow-the-event orders made after unsuccessful interlocutory applications, and the alleged respondent misconduct did not affect the making of those orders.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss summons seeking leave to appeal filed 8 February 2021.' "Order the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding."]