ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 3) [2016] NSWCATAD 156

ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 3) [2016] NSWCATAD 156

The Applicant did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias. Her complaints about unattributed or wrongly attributed submissions and failure to refer to submissions in ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) did not show that the Senior Member had prejudged the remaining issues or was not open to persuasion. The remaining questions concerned consequential orders following earlier findings of breaches, and the Applicant failed to identify a logical connection between the alleged conduct and any possible departure from impartial decision-making on those remaining questions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Disqualification or Recusal in Administrative and Privacy Proceedings / On the Papers; Procedural Ruling Before Determination of Consequential Orders
Outcome
Application for disqualification refused; matters adjourned and relisted for directions.
Legal Topics
['disqualification' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'recusal' 'consequential Orders Under Section 55(2) of the PPIP Act']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law' 'procedural Fairness'] ['disqualification' 'actual Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'recusal' 'consequential Orders Under Section 55(2) of the PPIP Act']

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 Disqualification or Recusal in Administrative and Privacy Proceedings / On the Papers; Procedural Ruling Before Determination of Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Senior Member should disqualify herself from further dealing with the Applicant's three applications on the basis of actual bias." 'Whether a fair-minded lay observer with knowledge of the material objective facts might reasonably apprehend that the Senior Member might not bring an impartial mind to the remaining issues.' "Whether unattributed or wrongly attributed submissions and failure to refer to the Applicant's submissions in ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) provided a logical connection to the remaining question of consequential orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant did not establish actual bias or apprehended bias. Her complaints about unattributed or wrongly attributed submissions and failure to refer to submissions in ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) did not show that the Senior Member had prejudged the remaining issues or was not open to persuasion. The remaining questions concerned consequential orders following earlier findings of breaches, and the Applicant failed to identify a logical connection between the alleged conduct and any possible departure from impartial decision-making on those remaining questions.

Court Disposition

Application for disqualification refused; matters adjourned and relisted for directions.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's application that I disqualify myself from further dealing with her applications is refused." 'The matters are relisted for further directions at 9.30 am on 29 August 2016.']