AZO24 v Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia (No 4) [2024] FCA 1212

AZO24 v Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia (No 4) [2024] FCA 1212

The applications for disqualification of the judge for apprehended or actual bias and for continuation of the interim suppression/non-publication orders were refused, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or objective grounds for those orders; the mere fact of recent judicial appointment or adverse decisions does not amount to bias, and the principle of open justice prevails absent compelling reasons.

Parties
Applicant: AZO24; First Respondent: Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia; Second Respondent: Thomas Stewart, National Registrar, Federal Court of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Originating Application and Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Orders and Refusal of Suppression/non Publication Orders
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Non Publication Orders, Disqualification of Judge, Apprehended Bias, Actual Bias, Open Justice
Practice and Procedure Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Suppression Orders Non Publication Orders Disqualification of Judge Apprehended Bias +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZO24

Applicant

Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia

First Respondent

Thomas Stewart, National Registrar, Federal Court of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application and Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Orders and Refusal of Suppression/non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim suppression/non-publication order should be continued or made permanent
  2. 2 Whether judge should be disqualified for actual or apprehended bias based on prior decisions or appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for disqualification of the judge for apprehended or actual bias and for continuation of the interim suppression/non-publication orders were refused, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or objective grounds for those orders; the mere fact of recent judicial appointment or adverse decisions does not amount to bias, and the principle of open justice prevails absent compelling reasons.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory orders 1, 2, and 4 of the Interlocutory Application filed on 4 October 2024 dismissed.
  • Interlocutory orders 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Interlocutory Application filed on 15 October 2024 dismissed.