Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(Division 2)

Clark and Aravanis in their capacity as joint and several trustees of the property of Kimber v Owners Corporation SP48216 [2021] FedCFamC2G 32 
File number(s):	SYG 723 of 2021	
		
Judgment of:	JUDGE DRIVER	
		
Date of judgment:	7 September 2021	
		
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for recusal.   	
		
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law	
		
Number of paragraphs:	4	
		
Date of hearing:	7 September 2021 	
		
Place:	Sydney	
		
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J T Johnson	
		
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Daniela Fazio Lawyers Pty Ltd	
		
Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Mr D Radman of Grace Lawyers	
		
	Second Respondent in person	

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
	SYG 723 of 2021	

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRLIA (DIVISION 2) 	
	
BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER DAVID CLARK AND ANDREW ARAVANIS IN THEIR CAPACITY AS JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JANELLE MARY KIMBER
Applicant
	
AND:	OWNERS CORPORATION SP48216
First Respondent

JANELLE MARY KIMBER
Second Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE DRIVER	
DATE OF ORDER:	7 SEPTEMBER 2021	

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The Application in a Case filed on 3 September 2021 is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
JUDGE DRIVER:
1	By an Application in a Case filed on 3 September 2021, the second respondent, Ms Kimber sought extensive interlocutory relief.  In the course of argument on the application, Ms Kimber asked that I recuse myself from the proceedings.  The application for recusal, as I understand it, has two elements to it.  The first is my prior involvement in bankruptcy proceedings involving Ms Kimber, and I accept that I did deal with matter SYG931 of 2016 and, on 28 May 2018, made an order that Ms Kimber pay 25 per cent of the petitioning creditor’s costs of those proceedings.  I do not accept that that earlier involvement and the making of that order predisposes me to any particular outcome in this matter, which concerns what action is necessary to permit the trustees administering the bankrupt estate of Ms Kimber to finalise that administration.
2	The second element relates to my conduct of the current proceedings.  The proceedings are complex.  They are difficult.  They are rendered more difficult by the fact that Ms Kimber is self-represented and attempting to deal with some serious issues.  With that in mind, I issued a certificate for Ms Kimber to receive pro bono representation, which, unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the Court, has not proved to be achievable, leaving Ms Kimber to continue the case by herself.  That is a serious challenge for her.  I accept that she has legitimate concerns about the conciliation process involving the trustees and the Owners Corporation, the subject of order 7 made by me on 18 May 2021.  
3	That process, however, was, in my view, necessary and appropriate in order to seek to resolve the dispute between the Owners Corporation and the trustees over the Owners Corporation’s proof of debt and a claimed priority costs order made by Judge Cameron on 23 August 2019.  Ms Kimber, of course, has her own interests to protect and will be given the opportunity to address that aspect of the matter. In that regard, her application in a case was unnecessary.  I have done my best to maintain a fair a rational process in the case and I do not accept that I have pre-judged it or might be seen to carry the risk of pre-judgment.  
4	Accordingly, I reject the application for recusal, and I dismiss the application in the case with no order as to costs.  

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Driver.	

Associate:

Dated:	13 September 2021