Melsom, Peter Michael & Ors v Forrest, B M, Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal & Ors [1997] FCA 1363

Melsom, Peter Michael & Ors v Forrest, B M, Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal & Ors [1997] FCA 1363

The applicants established a serious case to be tried because the Tribunal correspondence and the listing of the joinder and substantive hearings one hour apart made it arguable that the first respondent had pre-determined the fresh joinder application, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The balance of convenience favoured a stay because the justice issue was fundamental, no significant inconvenience to the first or third respondents was shown, and any inconvenience to the second respondents could potentially be addressed by listing another Tribunal member or by prompt hearing of the substantive application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) to Stay Administrative Appeals Tribunal Reviews Pending Determination of an Application That the First Respondent Cease Hearing Them / Interlocutory Stay Application
Outcome
Interlocutory stay granted; time for service abridged; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'interlocutory Relief' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Joinder Application' 'discharge From Bankruptcy']
['procedure' 'equity' 'administrative Law' 'bankruptcy'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'interlocutory Relief' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Joinder Application' 'discharge From Bankruptcy']

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) to Stay Administrative Appeals Tribunal Reviews Pending Determination of an Application That the First Respondent Cease Hearing Them / Interlocutory Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious issue to be tried that the first respondent would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias if he heard reviews V94/783 and V94/784.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured staying the Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviews pending determination of the application.' 'Whether the proximity of the joinder application hearing to the substantive hearing supported an arguable inference of pre-determination.' 'Whether the merits of the conduct of the third respondent were relevant to the interlocutory application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants established a serious case to be tried because the Tribunal correspondence and the listing of the joinder and substantive hearings one hour apart made it arguable that the first respondent had pre-determined the fresh joinder application, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The balance of convenience favoured a stay because the justice issue was fundamental, no significant inconvenience to the first or third respondents was shown, and any inconvenience to the second respondents could potentially be addressed by listing another Tribunal member or by prompt hearing of the substantive application.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory stay granted; time for service abridged; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pending the determination of this application the hearing of reviews V94/783 and V94/784 by the first respondent be stayed.' 'The time for service be abridged.' 'Costs be reserved.']