Kumaragamage v Rallis No.2 [2001] NSWSC 710

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Kumaragamage v Rallis No.2 [2001] NSWSC 710 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2677/01 HEARING DATE(S) : By written submissions on 7 and 8 August 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 August 2001

PARTIES : Prabha Ranjanee Kumaragamage and Don Kumaragamage (P1,P2) Charles Silva Rallis and Agnes Rallis (D1,D2) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J

COUNSEL : Plaintiffs in person D L Warren (D) SOLICITORS : Slade Manwaring (D) CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - allegation of bias - complaint to Judicial Commission - allegation of personal dislike - no reasonable apprehension of bias found, but practical considerations permit transfer to another Expedition List Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 411 CASES CITED : Bainton v Rajski (1992) 29 NSWLR 539 Brown v DML Resources Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 250 Re JRL ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 DECISION : Application for Judge to disqualify himself refused. Matter transferred to another Expedition List

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

TUESDAY 21 AUGUST 2001

2677/01 PRABHA RANJANEE KUMARAGAMAGE & 1 ORS v CHARLES SILVA RALLIS & 1 ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 6 June 2001 I published reasons for judgment on an interlocutory application by the plaintiffs, who sought to recover possession of a property and business at 180-182 Terminus Street, Liverpool, and some chattels there. I denied the relief sought by the plaintiffs (except in a minor respect), on the ground that there was no serious question to be tried with respect to their contentions that the defendants had wrongfully re-entered and terminated the leases of the premises. 2 I should say at once that the plaintiffs are litigants in person. The second plaintiff spoke for himself and his wife, the first plaintiff, although she was in court at all times and confirmed that he had her authority to speak on her behalf. The second plaintiff informed me that he is a law student. From the beginning, however, his conduct of the proceedings was very poor. He demonstrated some acquaintance with legal concepts and procedures, but no adequate understanding of the substance of the case or the procedures of this Court. 3 After observing his demeanour and responses to questions and his opponent's submissions over several days, I eventually concluded that the second plaintiff did not appreciate the limitations of his understanding of the matters in issue, and also that he had a determination, amounting to stubbornness, which made it difficult for him to realise his mistakes. One aspect of the dispute between the parties relates to the plaintiffs' failure to pay council rates with respect to the demised premises. On that issue, I said (at paragraph 51 of my reasons for judgment): 'The dispute between the parties as to payment of rates has, unfortunately, a long history. The history shows, in my view, a degree of stubbornness and unreasonableness on the part of the second plaintiff'.