Frigger v Banning (No 5) [2018] FCA 361

Frigger v Banning (No 5) [2018] FCA 361

No reasonable apprehension of bias arises from the judge's prior advice in 2009, as the advice did not concern present parties, issues, or matters before the court, nor did it involve forming any adverse view of any relevant person.

Parties
First Applicant: Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger; Second Applicant: Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger; First Respondent: Sandra May Banning; Second Respondent: Donald Campbell-Smith; Third Respondent: Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 082 879 641)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Recusal on Ground of Apprehension of Bias / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for recusal refused
Legal Topics
Apprehended Bias, Judicial Recusal
Commercial Law Corporations Law Apprehended Bias Judicial Recusal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger

First Applicant

Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger

Second Applicant

Sandra May Banning

First Respondent

Donald Campbell-Smith

Second Respondent

Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 082 879 641)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Recusal on Ground of Apprehension of Bias / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying the recusal of the judge

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonable apprehension of bias arises from the judge's prior advice in 2009, as the advice did not concern present parties, issues, or matters before the court, nor did it involve forming any adverse view of any relevant person.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused

Orders

  • Application for recusal on the ground of apprehension of bias refused.