• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Mr Vasiliou failed to comply with that order. The trustee of his bankrupt estate, Brendan Marchesi (the applicant), applied to Tracey J for a Registrar to be appointed and directed to execute the withdrawal of the caveat to give effect to Heerey J's earlier order (Reasons [3]).

At the hearing on 27 February 2009 Mr Vasiliou sought the recusal of Tracey J, arguing that because the judge had previously made adverse decisions in matters in which he was involved (including a decision of 2 February 2009 refusing leave to appeal from Heerey J's order, Apostolou v Marchesi [2009] FCA 66), she should be disqualified. He also sought an adjournment on the grounds of ill health and because he proposed to seek special leave to the High Court (Reasons [4]-[6]).

Tracey J refused both the disqualification and the adjournment applications. The judge applied the established reasonable apprehension test for disqualification and rejected the contention that an earlier adverse judgment alone sufficed to disqualify a judge (Reasons [5]). The adjournment was refused because Mr Vasiliou offered no evidence of ill health and the proceedings had a long history, including prior orders of Jessup J in 2007 and Heerey J's December 2008 orders; the Court would not permit further delay after the seven day compliance window had lapsed (Reasons [6], [9]).

During the hearing the second respondent left the bar table, approached and confronted the bench, was removed from court, and declined an offer to return on undertaking good behaviour (Reasons [7]). The matter proceeded in his absence.

Tracey J concluded that the orders sought by the applicant were appropriate to implement Heerey J's earlier direction and nominated Adam Moore, a Deputy Registrar of the Court, to execute and provide the withdrawal of the caveat in registrable form. The Court also ordered that the second respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing on an indemnity basis (Orders; Reasons [11]).

Why the court decided this way

There are three discrete strands to the court's reasoning.

1. Giving effect to Heerey J's earlier order: The primary objective was to enforce and operationalise the December 2008 order which required removal of the caveat. Heerey J had already anticipated the contingency of non-compliance by providing for appointment of a Registrar in that event. Tracey J regarded the present order as simply making that contingency concrete by nominating a particular Deputy Registrar, thereby giving effect to the prior order (Reasons [1]-[3], [11]). The court framed this as a matter of implementation, not of creating new relief.

2. Disqualification test applied strictly: Tracey J applied the well-known "reasonable observer" or reasonable apprehension test for judicial disqualification. She emphasised that a mere earlier adverse ruling by the judge does not, without more, generate a reasonable apprehension of bias. Because the second respondent advanced no additional material to show a realistic apprehension that the judge could not be impartial, the disqualification application failed (Reasons [4]-[5]). This is the decisive legal principle on recusal in this case.

3. Refusal of adjournment for lack of evidence and to prevent delay: The court required evidentiary support for claims that ill health prevented the second respondent from responding to affidavit material. No such evidence was offered. Given the long procedural history and the fact that the second respondent had seven days to comply with Heerey J's order and did not do so, Tracey J saw no reason to permit further delay on the speculative basis that a High Court application "may be made" (Reasons [6], [9]). Procedural finality and the need to implement earlier orders were important considerations.

The confluence of these strands led to a straightforward outcome: the court gave the applicant the relief necessary to enforce the earlier order, refused procedural applications that lacked evidentiary basis, and awarded costs against the non-complying party.

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision: The judgment in this file applies established legal standards rather than changing them. The two principal doctrine points are the reasonable apprehension test for disqualification and the Court's power to make procedural directions to ensure compliance with its orders. Those principles were well-established and Tracey J applied them to the facts before her.

After this decision: The decision does not purport to create new law. It demonstrates two practical applications of existing doctrine:

• The reasonable apprehension test is applied strictly. Tracey J reiterates that an earlier adverse decision by the same judge, standing alone, will not be sufficient to disqualify the judge (Reasons [4]-[5]).

• The Court will make specific, practical orders to give effect to earlier directions. Where an earlier order contemplated appointment of a Registrar in the event of non-compliance, the Court may subsequently nominate a specific Deputy Registrar to execute required documents in order to effect compliance (Reasons [1]-[3], [11]).

In short, Marchesi v Apostolou is an example of enforcement of interlocutory orders and strict application of recusal principles rather than a turning point in the law.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. Passage: "On 17 December 2008 Heerey J made orders which required the second respondent, Mr Andrew Vasiliou, within seven days to cause Optquest Pty Ltd to do all things that were necessary to effect the removal of a registered caveat..." (Reasons [1]). Plain-English translation: Heerey J told Mr Vasiliou he had seven days to get Optquest Pty Ltd to withdraw a caveat registered over certain properties.

2. Passage: "The appropriate test for determining whether a judge should disqualify him or herself from the hearing of a matter is whether a reasonable observer seized of the circumstances of the particular proceeding would harbour a reasonable apprehension that the judge would not bring an impartial mind..." (Reasons [5]). Plain-English translation: The judge should only step aside if someone properly informed would reasonably think the judge could not be impartial. Just having had a previous ruling go against you is not enough.

3. Passage: "The orders sought by the applicant should be made. They do no more than make more specific the order made by Heerey J on 17 December 2008 by nominating a particular Deputy District Registrar..." (Reasons [11]). Plain-English translation: The Court will appoint a named Deputy Registrar to sign the document withdrawing the caveat. This simply implements the earlier order; it does not change its substance.

4. Passage: "Mr Vasiliou has provided no evidence to support his claim to have been prevented by ill health from responding to the affidavit..." (Reasons [6]). Plain-English translation: The person asking for a delay said he was too sick to respond, but did not give any proof, so the Court would not delay the hearing.

5. Passage: "[At this point I was interrupted when Mr Vasiliou left the bar table and approached the bench. He came on to the bench and confronted me. He was removed from the court. I asked that he be advised that he could return provided he undertook to be of good behaviour. He declined that offer and so the matter proceeded in his absence.]" (Reasons [7]). Plain-English translation: The second respondent left his place and went up to the judge; he was removed and refused to promise to behave, so the hearing went on without him.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The practical ratio of this decision will be engaged where:

• A court has earlier ordered a party to take steps to withdraw or release an encumbrance (for example a caveat) within a fixed time and has provided that, in the event of non-compliance, a Registrar or officer of the court may be appointed to effect the necessary steps (Reasons [1]-[2]).

• The party against whom the order was made fails to comply within the prescribed period and refuses or neglects to procure the necessary document or act (Reasons [3]).

• The applicant seeks specific, ministerial relief: the court is being asked simply to implement an earlier order by naming a specific official to execute the relevant instrument (Reasons [11]).

• A recusal application is made based solely on the fact that the presiding judge previously ruled against the applicant, with no additional evidence of ill will or partiality (Reasons [4]-[5]).

• An application for adjournment is unsupported by evidence of incapacity and there is a history of orders and delay that militates against further postponement (Reasons [6], [9]).

In such circumstances, Marchesi v Apostolou shows that the Court will focus on enforcement, require evidence for procedural adjournments, and will not accept recusal arguments predicated only on prior adverse rulings.

How later courts have treated it

This judgment itself does not record subsequent treatment by later courts. The reasons reproduce and apply established principles rather than announcing novel doctrine. The immediate references in the judgment are to Heerey J's earlier orders (17 December 2008) and to the judge's own earlier decision refusing leave to appeal on 2 February 2009 (Apostolou (as Trustee of the Vasiliou Family Trust) v Marchesi [2009] FCA 66) (Reasons [1], [4]). The judgment does not cite later appellate or subsequent decisions that have applied or distinguished it, and the text does not purport to be a leading statement of novel law. Therefore, any inquiry into later judicial treatment must proceed by searching subsequent case law databases; that information is not contained in this judgment.

Still-open questions

1. Reasons for indemnity costs: The Orders direct indemnity costs against the second respondent. The Reasons as provided do not elaborate the basis for awarding indemnity costs rather than standard costs. The judgment records the award (Orders), but offers no detailed reasoning as to the circumstances that warranted indemnity costs. Practitioners seeking to rely on indemnity costs in similar settings will need to look elsewhere for guidance or further articulation of the factors the Court considered.

2. Scope of Registrar powers and limits: The Court appointed a Deputy Registrar to execute and provide a withdrawal of the caveat for and on behalf of Optquest Pty Ltd. The judgment treats that as a straightforward implementation of Heerey J's order. Questions remain about the limits of such appointments where third-party corporate entities contend the registrar lacks authority or where the Registrar's execution might raise issues about the proper party to authorise instruments. This judgment does not discuss any contested legal limits on the Court's power to direct a registrar to act for a private entity.

3. Interaction with appeal processes: The Court rejected delay premised on a possible High Court application. The judgment records that an appeal may be pursued but does not elaborate on the interplay between enforcement of interlocutory orders and pending or prospective appellate processes. Practitioners confronting situations where compliance might render an appeal nugatory will need to balance enforcement against risk to appellate remedy; this decision affirms the Court's readiness to enforce despite a speculative appeal, but does not explore the contours of that balancing exercise in depth.

4. Evidentiary threshold for incapacity claims: The judgment underscores that an applicant for adjournment on health grounds must provide evidence. However, it does not specify the quantum or form of evidence necessary. Future cases will develop what is required to satisfy the Court that an adjournment is justified on grounds of ill health.

Concluding note: Marchesi v Apostolou is a procedural, enforcement-focused decision. Its most useful authorities for practitioners are the restatement of the reasonable apprehension test for recusal (Reasons [5]) and the clear practical outcome that the Court will, where necessary, appoint a named court officer to give effect to an earlier order where a party has failed to comply (Reasons [1]-[3], [11]).