A forensic investigator being sued for defamation by Lloyd Rayney over comments about the mysterious death of the former Perth barrister's wife has failed in a last-minute bid to have the judge who presided over the trial remove herself from the case.
The legal action arose out of comments Mark Reynolds made to a public forum in 2014 that there was "no need for a cold case review" into the killing of Corryn Rayney in 2007 because "the offender was identified".
Dr Reynolds had worked with police on the investigation into Mrs Rayney's death.
At the defamation trial two years ago, Mr Rayney alleged that the comments gave rise to the imputation that he murdered his wife and got away with it.
Mr Rayney has always denied having anything to do with his wife's death, which occurred after she disappeared following a bootscooting class in the suburb of Bentley in August 2007.
Her body was found nine days later in a deep grave in Kings Park, about 14 kilometres away.
Mr Rayney was charged with her murder in 2010, and in 2012, after a judge-alone Supreme Court trial, he was found not guilty — a verdict upheld on appeal.
Judge dismisses bias claims
Judgement is yet to be delivered in Mr Rayney's defamation action against Dr Reynolds, who earlier this week formally applied for Justice Jenni Hill to no longer preside over the case.
He argued that Justice Hill's prior working relationship with Martin Bennett, the barrister who represented Mr Rayney, and the fact it had not been disclosed to him before the 2020 trial meant there was a possibility of "apprehended bias" in her deliberations.
On Wednesday, Justice Hill rejected Dr Reynold's application, saying she did not consider her prior working relationship with Mr Bennett might give rise to any apprehension of bias or that she might not decide the case on its merits.
Justice Hill said she had worked at the same law firm as Mr Bennett between 1994 and 2005, noting that the year she left was nine years before Dr Reynolds made the allegedly defamatory comments.
Investigator flags appeal
In her decision, Justice Hill also revealed that she was close to handing down her decision in the defamation action, prompting Dr Renyolds to inform her "out of courtesy" that he intended to lodge an appeal against her ruling not to recuse herself.
Dr Reynolds, who represented himself, then indicated he would also be applying for Justice Hill not to deliver her defamation findings pending the outcome of that appeal.
Justice Hill replied by saying she was at an "advanced" stage with her defamation ruling and unless Dr Reynolds formally made that application, she planned to go ahead and deliver her decision when it was finalised.
Justice Hill also ordered that Dr Reynolds pay Mr Rayney's legal costs for the recusal application, with those costs set at $2,227.
