Reihana v Minister for Government Services [2022] FCA 1017

Reihana v Minister for Government Services [2022] FCA 1017

The adjournment application was refused because the applicant had sought urgent determination of the recusal application, the proposed evidence from Registry staff was irrelevant to whether the judge should recuse herself, the request was unsupported and amounted to a fishing expedition, and refusal accorded with the overarching purpose. The recusal application was dismissed because the applicant did not substantiate any matter that might lead the judge to decide the proceedings other than on their legal and factual merits, and did not articulate a logical connection between the handling or timing of his interlocutory application and any feared departure from impartial decision-making.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Federal Court Judicial Review Extension of Time Proceedings / Hearing of Applicant's Adjournment Application and Interlocutory Application for Recusal
Outcome
The adjournment application was refused and the interlocutory application for recusal was dismissed, with costs payable by Toni Colin Reihana to the respondents.
Legal Topics
['recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'overarching Purpose' 'objections to Competency']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['recusal' 'apprehended Bias' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'overarching Purpose' 'objections to Competency']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Federal Court Judicial Review Extension of Time Proceedings / Hearing of Applicant's Adjournment Application and Interlocutory Application for Recusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearing of the recusal application should be adjourned pending the applicant obtaining affidavit evidence or interrogatory answers from Registry staff.' 'Whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that Collier J might not bring an impartial mind to the determination of QUD 122/2022 or QUD 123/2022.' "Whether the fact that the applicant's interlocutory injunction application was not heard before or on 27 July 2022 supported apprehended bias."]

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment application was refused because the applicant had sought urgent determination of the recusal application, the proposed evidence from Registry staff was irrelevant to whether the judge should recuse herself, the request was unsupported and amounted to a fishing expedition, and refusal accorded with the overarching purpose. The recusal application was dismissed because the applicant did not substantiate any matter that might lead the judge to decide the proceedings other than on their legal and factual merits, and did not articulate a logical connection between the handling or timing of his interlocutory application and any feared departure from impartial decision-making.

Court Disposition

The adjournment application was refused and the interlocutory application for recusal was dismissed, with costs payable by Toni Colin Reihana to the respondents.

Orders

  • ['The application for adjournment made by Toni Colin Reihana on 30 August 2022 in respect of QUD 122/2022 and QUD123/2022, be refused.' 'The interlocutory application for recusal made by Toni Colin Reihana in respect of QUD122/2022 and QUD123/2022, filed on 29 August 2022 in QUD 123/2022, be dismissed.' 'Toni Colin...