Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2022] NSWCA 176 Hearing dates: 8 September 2022 (on the papers) Decision date: 09 September 2022 Before: Gleeson JA Decision: Application for recusal declined Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Court of Appeal – bias – apprehended bias on the ground of prejudgment – where members of the Court sat on previous unsuccessful applications by the applicant Cases Cited: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; [2011] HCA 2 CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 78; [2019] HCA 50 Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48 Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2020] NSWCA 295 Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission; Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2017] NSWCA 267 Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342; [1986] HCA 39 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Michael Quach (Applicant) NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (First Respondent) NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) Solicitors: Self-represented (Applicant) File Number(s): 2015/158685 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment 1. GLEESON JA: Application is made by Mr Michael Van Thanh Quach by notice of motion filed 5 April 2022 to set aside a vexatious proceedings order made by the Court on 20 October 2017. [1] This is the fifth such application by Mr Quach; his four previous applications were unsuccessful. 2. The notice of motion also seeks an order, relevantly, that I recuse myself for apprehended bias given my participation as a member of the Court which dismissed Mr Quach's fourth application to set aside this order on 18 November 2020. [2] 3. Questions of bias should be addressed first, as the High Court explained in Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd. [3] That is because the necessary result, if bias is established, is a retrial. [4] Apprehended bias 1. The test for apprehension of bias is objective. It does not require an assessment of the state of mind of the judge in question, as is necessary on an inquiry about actual bias. [5] The test for recusal is whether a fair-minded lay person might reasonably consider that the judicial officer might not carry out their judicial functions with an impartial and unprejudiced mind. [6] 2. The application of the double "might" test requires two steps. First, identification of what it is said might lead the decisionmaker to decide a question other than on the merits of that question; and second, an articulation of the logical connection between the matter identified and the apprehended or feared deviation from the course of deciding the question other than on its merits. [7] 3. In considering the recusal application, I am mindful that it is the duty of a judicial officer to determine matters which come before the judge and not to withdraw unless there are reasons which require the judge to do so. As Mason J said in Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [8] : Although it is important that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally important that judicial officers discharge their duty to sit and do not, by acceding too readily to suggestions of appearance of bias, encourage parties to believe that by seeking the disqualification of a judge, they will have their case tried by someone thought to be more likely to decide the case in their favour. 1. In this case, the decision of the Court in November 2020 dismissing Mr Quach's application did not involve findings adverse to Mr Quach's credibility. To the extent that Mr Quach raises arguments on the present application similar to the legal arguments which were rejected by the Court when dismissing his previous application, my involvement in the Court's November 2020 decision is not a reason for apprehending an inability to deal fairly, according to law, with the further application made by Mr Quach. 2. Applying the double "might" test, I am satisfied that a fair-minded lay person would not reach the conclusion that I might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions for decision on the notice of motion. [9] 3. For these reasons, I decline the recusal application. ********** Endnotes 1. Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission; Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2017] NSWCA 267. 2. Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2020] NSWCA 295 (Gleeson JA, Leeming and McCallum JJA agreeing.) 3. Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 (Concrete). 4. Concrete at [2]-[3] (Gummow ACJ), [117] (Kirby and Crennan JJ), [172] (Callinan J). 5. Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48 (Michael Wilson) at [33]. 6. Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 (Ebner) at [6]; Michael Wilson at [31]; CNY 17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 78; [2019] HCA 50 at [17]-[18] (Kiefel CJ and Gageler J), [56]-[57] (Nettle and Gordon JJ), [132] (Edelman J). 7. Michael Wilson at [31], citing Ebner at [16]. 8. (1986) 161 CLR 342 at 352; [1986] HCA 39. 9. Ebner at [8]; Michael Wilson at [32]-[33]; British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; [2011] HCA 2 at [139] (Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ). DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 September 2022