22 Jan 2010
Recusal refused because the prior restrictive order concerned different issues and did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias; unsubstantiated allegations of lack of independence do not disqualify the judge from hearing the limited charging order application.
22 Jan 2010
The judge refused recusal because the prior Grepe v Loam/Restricted Application Order and earlier judgments concerned different issues from the present limited charging order applications and would not lead a well-informed reasonable observer to infer bias; unsubstantiated allegations of lack of independence did not justify disqualification.
22 Jan 2010
Recusal refused because the earlier case raised different issues from the present limited charging order application and therefore would not lead a well-informed reasonable observer to conclude the judge was biased; allegations of lack of independence were unsubstantiated and did not meet the threshold for disqualification, so the judge properly continued to hear the application.
22 Jan 2010
Recusal refused because the prior restrictive order dealt with different issues and, given the limited jurisdiction of the present application, a well‑informed reasonable observer would not conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias; allegations of lack of independence were unsubstantiated.