Keddies stuck in the stalls

Judge decides no reasonable person could think he was prejudiced against former Keddies' partners ... Stay also refused ... Contempt hearing against Keddies boys now set for February 16 ... Brigit Morris reporting from the NSW Supremes 

This morning (Feb. 3) Justice Michael Adams dismissed an application that he step aside from hearing contempt proceedings against the Keddies Three on the ground of apprehended bias.

The former Keddies' partners (Russell Keddie, Scott Roulstone and Tony Barakat) are defending a contempt charge for allegedly breaching an injunction forbidding them approaching former clients.

The clients are suing Keddies in the District Court for allegedly mishandling their settlement moneys.

In his swift refusal of the application against him continuing to sit Justice Adams held that no fair-minded, lay observer could reasonably apprehend any prejudice by him towards the defendants. 

The response from Chris Branson QC, for the defendants, was to file an application to stay the contempt proceedings.

Branson relied on last December's High Court decision in Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls, where the majority held that a failure by a party to proceedings to seek leave against the refusal of an application for bias, would preclude the right of that party to appeal the decision in final judgment.

Robert Stitt QC, for Stephen Firth, the solicitor acting for Keddies' disaffected former clients, pressed the urgency of concluding the contempt hearing.

Stitt said that in light of the defence's use of stalling tactics to delay the contempt proceedings the matter should be resolved quickly.

The application for a stay of proceedings was also refused. Adams' reasons for dismissing the application will be published on Monday (Feb. 6).

The contempt of court hearing has been adjourned until February 16.

Justice Adams' reasons in full 

Brigit Morris reporting

Update on Friday, February 10, 2012 by Justinian

Further proceedings have been stayed by Basten JA pending the outcome of an appeal against Adams' apprehended bias decision. See reasons.