Praljak v State of Queensland [2022] FCA 572

Praljak v State of Queensland [2022] FCA 572

Justice Logan disqualified himself because Mr Praljak had commenced a separate proceeding naming Justice Logan as a respondent, and the claims in that proceeding were ad hominem. In those circumstances, justice would not be seen to be done if a judge who was a party to a proceeding separately instituted by one of the parties continued to hear the present proceeding, and the circumstance was not a proper subject for waiver.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Originating Application Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) Requiring Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A) / Case Management Hearing Concerning Judicial Disqualification Before Hearing of the Separate Leave Question
Outcome
Justice Logan disqualified himself from the further hearing of the proceeding; the listed hearing was vacated and adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'leave Under S 46 Po(3 A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'self Represented Litigant']
['high Court and Federal Court' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['judicial Disqualification' 'apprehended Bias' 'leave Under S 46 Po(3 A) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'self Represented Litigant']

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

Originating Application Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) Requiring Leave Under S 46 Po(3 A) / Case Management Hearing Concerning Judicial Disqualification Before Hearing of the Separate Leave Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Justice Logan should disqualify himself from further hearing the proceeding after the applicant commenced a separate proceeding naming Justice Logan as a respondent.' 'Whether justice could be seen to be done where the docket judge was a party to separately instituted proceedings brought by one of the parties.' "Whether the parties' lack of objection could avoid disqualification in the circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

Justice Logan disqualified himself because Mr Praljak had commenced a separate proceeding naming Justice Logan as a respondent, and the claims in that proceeding were ad hominem. In those circumstances, justice would not be seen to be done if a judge who was a party to a proceeding separately instituted by one of the parties continued to hear the present proceeding, and the circumstance was not a proper subject for waiver.

Court Disposition

Justice Logan disqualified himself from the further hearing of the proceeding; the listed hearing was vacated and adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['Justice Logan is disqualified from the further hearing of the present proceeding.' 'The hearing of the application for leave under s 46PO of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) presently fixed to occur at Ipswich on 24 May 2022 be vacated.' 'The hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed.' "Costs...