8 Dec 2023
The renewed recall application was dismissed because it impermissibly sought to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave to appeal and failed to meet the established high threshold for recall, therefore the recall must be refused and further filings in the matter restrained.
24 Nov 2023
Disclosure required by Powell J was insufficient in substance to permit informed decisions about recusal; the Deputy LCRO's reconsideration of 6 July 2023 proceeded on the wrong basis by failing to address the correct recusal application and by giving inadequate reasons; those errors breached natural justice and the 6 July 2023 decision is quashed with directions to provide fuller disclosure and to reconsider recusal and mode of hearing with reasoned decisions.
17 Nov 2023
The appeal is an abuse of process and is struck out: Walker J correctly applied r 5.35B to strike out the judicial review as a collateral attack on prior appellate judgments, the interlocutory application was moot, and the Supreme Court's limited comment did not entitle the appellant to a hearing; accordingly the Court of Appeal strikes out the appeal under r 44A.
11 Aug 2023
The recall application was declined because there was no extant recusal application, the previously unreported judgment had subsequently been published and made available, and the alleged suppression breach did not arise as the names used were fictitious.
26 Jul 2023
The Court declined all three leave applications because the proposed appeals were untenable and without merit: the recusal challenge did not disclose an arguable error and was addressed consistently with legal tests; an adjournment of an application is not an appealable determination; and the transcript was unnecessary to resolve the matters and procedural requirements for leave were not met.
21 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the High Court's interlocutory decision; the underlying tort claim had already been considered by the Court of Appeal and found to be untenable and apparently vexatious, making lifting the stay pointless and an abuse of process; granting leave would not serve the interests of justice.
3 Jul 2023
The Associate Judge dismissed the recusal application and refused leave to appeal because adverse rulings do not demonstrate bias, the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact and an Associate Judge has jurisdiction to determine interlocutory applications; the request to waive security for costs was premature because no security order existed.
23 Jun 2023
The judicial review applications are dismissed: there is no evidence Judge Cook was biased or predeter-mined; the Family Court was entitled to confirm the s 133 report order (it was not a new order) and could reasonably form the view the s 133(6) criteria were met; judicial review of s 133 orders is restricted to clear‑cut errors or bias and is unavailable here; delay did not render the s 133 order unlawful and the remedies sought lack utility.
17 May 2023
Recall application dismissed: no reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the alleged professional connections were historical and remote, judge assignment six weeks in advance did not indicate special assignment or non-random allocation, and an intelligent fair‑minded observer would not infer lack of impartiality; ultra vires grounds were barred by issue estoppel following Peters J's prior decision that the applicant could and ought to have raised those grounds earlier, and recall cannot be used to introduce arguments that were not raised at the original hearing; costs awarded to resp…
12 May 2023
Application dismissed: the alleged counterclaim relied on by Mr Jones is the same claim rejected by the Court of Appeal and cannot be used to set aside the bankruptcy notice; the Court will not re‑open or conduct a collateral attack on prior full judgments absent prima facie fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice; the Court has no power to halt an adjudication that has not yet been filed; recusal was not warranted; costs to follow the event with procedure for indemnity costs application.