Mr de Robillard claimed that because a registrar of the court made a costs order in favour of the NSW Bar, the bench had been “pre-determined in favour of the council without a hearing and without any reasons being given”, so could not rule without bias.

The bench determined the “flaw” in his argument is that while the registrar’s decision is an order of the same court, “it is a decision reviewable by this court” and that the costs decision “does not bind this court to any particular conclusion” reached by the registrar.

“Thus, no fair-minded lay observer could reasonably apprehend that, by reason of the registrar’s costs decision, the members of this court might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions they will be required to decide in the determination of the council’s summons,” the bench concluded.

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) referred the removal application to the court after a finding he engaged in professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The tribunal found Mr de Robillard made baseless allegations against a principal lawyer and had failed to pay the same lawyer the costs of an interlocutory application to strike his name from proceedings.

During the NCAT hearing, Mr de Robillard made a number of allegations against the Bar Council, including a claim he had become a “victim of an orchestrated campaign against him professionally”.

In the same hearing, Mr de Robillard requested principal member Le Poer Trench, senior member Harry Dixon, and the tribunal recuse itself.

VIEW ALL

During the oral submissions, Mr de Robillard accused Mr Dixon of “staring in a very mean and aggressive way” and described the senior member as a “cheetah on a branch about to jump on his prey”.

The Court of Appeal bench ordered a timetable be set down to determine the removal application.