26 Apr 2023
The Court dismissed the recusal application because the mode of judicial appointment relied on by the applicant does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the judges will not decide the case objectively and on its merits; to accept the argument would unrealistically disqualify the senior judiciary.
8 Oct 2021
Summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant raised arguable defences that preclude a finding that there is no real question to be tried: (1) credible expert and factual material supports an arguable contention that PRC courts (and/or judicial committees) may lack the independence and impartiality required for recognition at common law or that natural justice may have been compromised, and (2) disputed issues of PRC substantive law and fact (the 'property first' principle, waiver, preservation of collateral and priority of enforcement against Detai) mean the Hebei judgment may not be…
4 Jun 2021
Diplomatic assurances may be considered to remove a real risk of torture or unfair trial but only following a three-stage assessment: (1) evaluate individual risk in light of general human rights situation, (2) assess the specificity and monitoring arrangements of assurances, and (3) assess likelihood assurances will be honoured; where deficiencies remain, the Minister must obtain further targeted assurances or information before ordering surrender.
2 Jun 2021
Although the applicant succeeded and is deserving of costs, the High Court declined costs because participation by the District Court was permitted and appropriate to assist the Court, the errors identified were legal and not conduct of the kind (perverse, oppressive or in bad faith) that would justify costs against a judicial officer under Newton, and therefore no costs order was warranted to express disapproval.
30 Sept 2020
The statement of claim was struck out because it was an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the pleadings lacked required particularity and factual basis for serious allegations, amounted to a collateral attack on judicial decisions, and there is no statutory or implied power permitting the executive respondents to investigate or discipline court officers for decisions made in the exercise of judicial functions; appropriate remedies lie under r2.11 and the court's inherent jurisdiction, not by the executive.
1 May 2019
The statement of claim was struck out and the proceeding dismissed because it was an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the pleading was defective and made unsubstantiated scandalous allegations; moreover the respondents lacked power to investigate or discipline registrars for functions that are judicial in nature due to separation of powers, and the proper remedies were review under r 2.11 or the court's inherent supervisory jurisdiction rather than executive disciplinary action.
8 Apr 2009
The claims against the Minister (and Chief Executive) and the Solicitor-General disclosed no reasonable cause of action because no statutory power was identified by which those executive actors could investigate or prosecute the Registrar or Judge, and executive interference with court processes is improper; accordingly those claims were struck out, while allegations properly directed at the District Court and the defendant remain for judicial review or other appropriate remedies subject to amendment to remove inflammatory language.
11 Jul 2008
The judge must not recuse where the alleged grounds arise solely from the judge's institutional role rather than a personal or direct financial interest; receipt or prospect of Higher Duties Allowance or status under a defined contribution superannuation scheme are speculative or institutional matters not amounting to automatic disqualification, and do not meet the fair‑minded lay‑observer test for reasonable apprehension of bias; further discovery was refused as late, unnecessary to the issues before the Court and failing relevance/necessity requirements, with privilege issues left undecided.
11 Jul 2008
The High Court held the statutory regime governing acting Judges and the nomination/assignment of High Court Judges to Court of Appeal divisions did not, on the material before the Court, breach the requirements of judicial independence and impartiality; Robertson J's concurrent role at the Law Commission did not render him incapable of judicial office or give rise to justiciable impartiality concerns; however the Court identified concerns warranting further administrative or legislative review regarding the legal basis for the higher duties allowance and the adequacy/structure of judicial su…
8 Mar 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged grounds were systemic policy matters not warranting this Court's intervention on a leave application, there was no arguable prejudice from the delay to justify sentence reduction, and the alleged judicial conduct did not affect the fairness or impartiality of the appeal process.