On 31 July 2012, Judd J conducted a directions hearing in a case which was scheduled for trial before him commencing on 2 August 2012. In the action, the plaintiffs were alleging that the defendants had breached their duties as trustees of family trusts and sought to have the defendants removed and replaced by new trustees. In the course of discussions with counsel at the directions hearing, his Honour alluded to the prospect that, having regard to the state of the family relationship, the appointment of new trustees might be thought to be inevitable and that the parties might benefit from taking a practical view of the issues in the case. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that those remarks gave rise to an apprehension of predetermination on the basic issue in the case. The defendants applied for leave to appeal against orders made by the judge refusing to transfer the proceedings to another judge for hearing and ordering them to pay costs. They submitted that, save where a decision rejecting an application for leave to appeal against the rejection of an application that a judge not hear a case due to alleged apprehended bias was not attended by any doubt whatsoever, the criteria for leave would ordinarily be satisfied if a long and costly trial would be wasted if the judge’s decision were incorrect.