NSW Supreme Court: V2V Investment v Green Estate De Novo Hearing Ordered After Recusal

• The NSW Supreme Court ordered a de novo hearing in V2V Investment Pte Ltd v Green Estate Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1135 after the initial judge recused himself.
• The new hearing will preserve the previous judge's evidentiary rulings on affidavit objections and tendered physical exhibits.
• Justice Harrison emphasized that this approach would reduce overall hearing time and allow for direct observation of witness demeanour.
• The decision balances the need for a fair trial and expeditious litigation against the costs of restarting proceedings.

The court's decision to order a new hearing, while preserving certain prior evidentiary rulings, underscores a pragmatic approach to judicial recusal, balancing efficiency with the imperative of a fair trial.

The New South Wales Supreme Court recently addressed the complex procedural challenges arising from a judge's recusal, issuing an order for a de novo hearing in the matter of V2V Investment Pte Ltd v Green Estate Australia Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1135. This significant ruling clarifies how subsequent proceedings should manage evidence and prior judicial determinations. The case saw Justice Black preside over approximately eight days of hearings across March and August 2026, during which he reviewed all affidavit evidence submitted by the parties.

However, on 27 August 2026, Justice Black disqualified himself from the case following an application by one of the parties, necessitating a change in judicial oversight. The Chief Judge in Equity subsequently allocated the matter to Justice Harrison on 31 August 2026, with a new hearing scheduled for an estimated ten days, commencing on 12 October 2026. While the parties concurred that Justice Black's rulings on affidavit objections and the status of physical exhibits tendered before him should remain undisturbed, they diverged on the broader procedural approach for the recommenced proceedings.

Upon the resumption of the matter on 12 October 2026, Justice Harrison ultimately ordered a hearing de novo, with the crucial exception of the evidentiary rulings made by Justice Black concerning affidavit objections and the acceptance of physical exhibits. This decision was guided by Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW, which provides for flexibility in such circumstances, allowing for a complete restart, a continuation, or a hybrid approach. Justice Harrison articulated several reasons for this specific order.

A primary consideration was the potential for a considerable reduction in the overall time required for the proceedings. Despite acknowledging that a de novo hearing would inevitably mean the previous hearing days and associated costs were effectively wasted, Justice Harrison drew upon his extensive experience as both a judge and a practising barrister. He noted that repeating cross-examination, when necessary, almost invariably proved quicker in subsequent hearings, as witnesses were often better prepared and the core issues had become clearer. Furthermore, the judge emphasized the paramount importance of ensuring a fair trial and facilitating expeditious litigation, free from undue delay or expense for all involved parties.

This ruling offers important guidance for litigation practice new hearing scenarios, particularly concerning hearing de novo evidentiary rulings following a NSW Supreme Court judge recusal procedure. Justice Harrison highlighted that observing witness demeanour is crucial for discerning truth and detecting dishonesty, a task he felt more comfortable undertaking directly rather than relying solely on transcripts of previous testimony. He also expressed minimal concern that witnesses might become overly preoccupied with their previously recorded answers, reasoning that a truthful witness would not need to recall prior statements.

The court's decision to order a new hearing, while preserving certain prior evidentiary rulings, underscores a pragmatic approach to judicial recusal, balancing efficiency with the imperative of a fair trial. For legal practitioners, this case clarifies the court's preference for procedural continuity where possible (e.g., preserving agreed-upon evidentiary rulings) but also its willingness to order a fresh start for substantive aspects like witness testimony. Justice Harrison also suggested that listing the matter for directions before the scheduled start date could be beneficial for addressing any administrative loose ends promptly, offering a practical tip for managing complex litigation efficiently.

Lawyers should note this decision as it clarifies the NSW Supreme Court's approach to ordering a hearing de novo after a judge's recusal, particularly regarding the preservation of prior evidentiary rulings on affidavits and tendered exhibits. This provides practical guidance for managing procedural continuity and efficiency in complex litigation, informing strategic decisions on how to proceed or argue for specific procedural orders in similar circumstances.

Source: Reporting on a recent NSW Supreme Court decision.