Language – Gainsay

Cambridge Dictionary (online) says:

verb

to refuse to accept something as the truth:

certainly there’s no gainsaying (= it is not possible to doubt) the technical brilliance of his performance.

…

Merriam-Webster Dictionary says:

verb

1 to declare to be untrue or invalid

2 Contradict, oppose

did not dare to gainsay the king

gainsayer noun

QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15 (17 May 2023),Edelman J said:

129. As to the prudential and pragmatic reasons for the subject judge to make the determination concerning bias, this Court recognised in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy that there may be circumstances in which a judge will decline to sit even if the judge has not affirmatively concluded that they are disqualified[184]. This is sometimes described as a prudential principle. Prudence is a loose term which encompasses a value judgment based upon a combination of factors: the misnomer “duty to sit”, which is really a principle that a judge should not too readily disqualify themself, particularly where there is not a large pool of available alternative judges; and case management concerns including delays, and other issues including the inconvenience that might result if, after a lengthy trial, a finely balanced decision not to recuse were found on appeal to be incorrect[185].
130. The principle that the single judge who is to hear a matter is also the person who should first decide any issue concerning their own bias does not gainsay the possibility of any appeal or application for judicial review. It has been said that a decision by a single judge not to recuse themself is not reviewable because it involves no order of the court commanding any party to do anything[186]. Whether or not this is correct, the judge might be asked to make a declaration for the purposes of an appeal and, in any event, any orders made by the judge are, in principle, capable of appeal or judicial review on the ground of bias or apprehended bias[187].

….

R v Omid [2012] QCA 4 (3 February 2011), McMurdo P said at [51]:

…. As the appellant (through Mr Williamson) admitted at trial, he was the only person in the house when the fire started, the prosecution case against him was compelling unless he called other expert evidence to gainsay the opinions of the prosecution expert witnesses. So much is clear from the judge’s summation for the jury of the defence case.[8]