Vakauta v Kelly [1989] HCA 44
The majority held that the trial judge's statements about frequent medical witnesses and the insurer, while perhaps infelicitously phrased, did not constitute actual or apprehended bias in the circumstances, given judges' unavoidable familiarity with such witnesses in repeated litigation, and the defensive conduct of noting the issue without objection amounted to waiver. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Trial Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['judicial Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'waiver of Objection to Bias' 'damages in Personal Injury Cases']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Trial Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether statements by the trial judge exhibited actual or apprehended bias against the defendant or its witnesses' 'Whether failure to object to the trial judge continuing to hear the case constituted waiver of any right to appeal for bias']
Ratio Decidendi
The majority held that the trial judge's statements about frequent medical witnesses and the insurer, while perhaps infelicitously phrased, did not constitute actual or apprehended bias in the circumstances, given judges' unavoidable familiarity with such witnesses in repeated litigation, and the defensive conduct of noting the issue without objection amounted to waiver. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment