29 Jul 2015
The third application for recall was dismissed because it largely repeated grounds already considered, amounted to an abuse of process, and the allegations of bias and requests for joinder were raised too late and did not establish bias or a conflict of interest.
3 Jul 2012
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the identified point of law was not capable of bona fide and serious argument; the original Tribunal reasonably re-sentenced having heard all relevant evidence and there was no appearance of bias, so leave to appeal was refused.
15 Jun 2011
Applying Saxmere the Judge concluded that while friendship and past professional dealings do not automatically require recusal, given the circumstances and the parties' positions it was appropriate to decline to hear the matter further and transfer the proceeding to another registry to avoid any appearance of bias and to ensure subsequent steps are dealt with by other judges.
7 May 2008
The Court refused to restrain Minter Ellison from representing the Professional Conduct Committee in the strike out application because there was no objectively reasonable appearance of lack of independence or bias on the facts, the Committee had different legal advice during its investigation (complying with s73(4) HPCA Act 2003), and any conflict must be shown on the individual facts before the Court will prevent a party from instructing its chosen counsel.
13 Nov 2006
The recusal applications were dismissed because no reasonable, objective apprehension of bias was established: the hearing sequence did not amount to predetermination and prior participation by judges in a leave decision (Udompun) on different facts and procedural grounds did not create an appearance of bias on the merits of the present appeal.