(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The judge had made disparaging remarks about certain doctor witnesses who ‘thought you could do a full day’s work with no arms and no legs.’ Mahoney JA discussed a suggestion of apparent bias, saying: ‘In considering the content of the apprehended bias principle the court must look to, inter alia, two things: what are the norms or standards relevant to the kind of case before it; and whether, on the facts, the requirements have been fulfilled.’
Mahoney JA
(1988) 13 NSWLR 502
Australia
Cited by:
Appeal from – Vakauta v Kelly 1989
(High Court of Australia) The majority held that the first instance judge fell on the wrong side of ‘an ill-defined line beyond which the expression by a trial judge of preconceived views about the reliability of particular medical witnesses could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.654119
