Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1318

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1318

The motion was refused because filing an application for an order nisi in the High Court did not justify staying the proceedings, and there was nothing that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or warrant disqualification of the judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Motion / Motion of 16 October 2002
Outcome
The motion of 16 October 2002 was refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'litigants in Person']
['civil Procedure'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'litigants in Person']

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

Federal Court Motion / Motion of 16 October 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the mere filing of an application for an order nisi in the High Court should lead to a stay of the proceedings.' 'Whether Dowsett J should disqualify himself on the basis of alleged bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was refused because filing an application for an order nisi in the High Court did not justify staying the proceedings, and there was nothing that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or warrant disqualification of the judge.

Court Disposition

The motion of 16 October 2002 was refused.

Orders

  • ['The motion of 16 October 2002 is refused.']