Australia, Dec. 26 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Dec. 13:
1. GLEESON JA: On 9, 10 and 11 September 2024, the Court, constituted by Leeming JA, Griffiths AJA and me, heard concurrently three matters: an appeal, a notice of motion in the appeal proceedings for review of certain orders of the Registrar, and a summons seeking a removal order against Mr Christian Roger de Robillard under s 23(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (the Uniform Law). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court reserved its judgment in those matters.
Recusal application
2. On 26 November 2024, ten weeks after judgment was reserved and the day prior to the date the proceedings had been listed for delivery of judgment, the Court received an email at 3:39 pm from Mr de Robillard attaching an "urgent application" seeking leave to reopen the proceedings to make an application that I recuse myself on the ground of apprehension of bias. The parties were notified that the Court would deal with that application at 10:00 am on 27 November 2024.
3. At the hearing on 27 November 2024, Mr de Robillard made some oral submissions in addition to his written submissions of five pages and sought a further 7 days in which to file further written submissions. That request was granted, and directions were made for that to occur, including any response by the Bar Council. The recusal application was stood over for hearing on 12 December 2024 and the Court vacated the listing of the proceedings that day for the delivery of judgment. The Court received further written submissions from Mr de Robillard of 3 pages; pars 1 to 12 of those submissions addressed matters outside the grant of leave to make the reopening application; these paragraphs sought to reargue aspects of the appeal and the removal application. Mr de Robillard supplemented his written submissions (initial and supplementary) by a further document of 13 pages which was provided to the Court at the commencement of the hearing on 12 December 2024. He also addressed the Court orally for 1.5 hours and tendered some documents.
4. The assertion of apprehended bias is on the grounds that (1) my association with a family member who was previously a member of the Bar Council, and my association with other judges of the Supreme Court both demonstrated a lack of independence, and (2) my conduct during the hearing demonstrated prejudgment.
5. At the conclusion of oral argument, I declined the recusal request, and made an order dismissing that application. Mr de Robillard was given the opportunity to renew his application to the Court as a whole but chose not to. Leeming JA and Griffiths AJA were both present on the bench when the recusal application was made and determined by me. I reserved my reasons until 9:30 am on 13 December 2024. These are my reasons for dismissing the recusal application.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193b90fc93e85ead0b03c28a)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.