this product is unavailable for purchase using a firm account, please log in with a personal account to make this purchase.

Select from any of the filters or enter a search term
Calendar
Calendar

Federal Court judgments

Federal Court judgments

By Dan Star QC

Judgment 


In Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinoris [2017] FCAFC 117 (10 August 2017) the Full Federal Court dismissed an appeal from the primary judge’s dismissal of the proceeding. At first instance the primary judge held that a liquidator (Mr Dinoris) breached his duty as the liquidator of the appellant company and made a finding of contravention of s180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) against him. However, the primary judge did not award compensation under s1317H of the Act on the basis that the company had not established that any damage had resulted from the contravention. The Full Court also dismissed a cross-appeal against the findings made against Mr Dinoris. One of the appellant’s grounds of appeal was that the primary judge should have recused himself for apprehended bias (at [35]-[51]). The basis of this ground were comments made by the primary judge at a pre-trial management hearing a few days before the trial commenced. The primary judge dismissed the recusal application that was made at the commencement of the trial. The Full Court (Greenwood, Davies and Markovic JJ) found no error by the primary judge in doing so. Among other reasons, the Full Court stated that it would be wrong to have regard to the final reasons for judgment in the proceeding in determining whether the comments at the pre-trial case management conference gave rise to an apprehension of bias (at [48]). Their Honours cited and relied upon the following observations of the High Court in Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427 at [67]: “As pointed out earlier in these reasons, an allegation of apprehended bias requires an objective assessment of the connection between the facts and circumstances said to give rise to the apprehension and the asserted conclusion that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to bear upon the issues that are to be decided.

The content you are trying to access is exclusive to LIV members*

To access your exclusive member content please click the 'Already a Member' button below and you will be redirected automatically.

Not a member but would like to find out about the value of LIV membership? Click the 'Become a Member' button below or call our membership team on (03) 9607 9470.

*Note that some content may be exclusive to specific types of members. If you would like to inquire about your access please contact the membership team on (03) 9607 9470.