Thomas v University of Melbourne [2018] FCA 1978

Thomas v University of Melbourne [2018] FCA 1978

The applicant's evidence of charitable donations to the University of Melbourne, and dissatisfaction with procedural rulings, do not establish a logical or reasonable connection that would cause a fair-minded lay observer to reasonably apprehend that Justice Wheelahan might not bring an impartial mind to the matters in dispute. There is no evidence of actual bias. Accordingly, the application for recusal is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Darron Thomas; First Respondent: The University of Melbourne; Second Respondent: Australian Human Rights Commission; Third Respondent: Spencer Martin; Fourth Respondent: Lyndon Moore; Fifth Respondent: Stephen Brown; Sixth Respondent: Gary Twite; Seventh Respondent: Vincent Gregoire; Eighth Respondent: Penelope Pepperell; Ninth Respondent: Lydia McConnell; Tenth Respondent: Office of the Provost of the University of Melbourne; Eleventh Respondent: Sean Hogan; Twelfth Respondent: Craig Bird; Thirteenth Respondent: Angus McKenzie; Fourteenth Respondent: Glen Bartlett; Fifteenth Respondent: Michael Caswell; Sixteenth Respondent: Jackie Sarkies; Seventeenth Respondent: Anish Nagpal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Recusal of Judge – Determination
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apprehended Bias, Actual Bias, Recusal of Judge, Discrimination, Judicial Review, Case Management, Judicial Impartiality
Administrative Law Human Rights Employment Law Judicial Procedure Apprehended Bias Actual Bias Recusal of Judge Discrimination +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darron Thomas

Applicant

The University of Melbourne

First Respondent

Australian Human Rights Commission

Second Respondent

Spencer Martin

Third Respondent

Lyndon Moore

Fourth Respondent

Stephen Brown

Fifth Respondent

Gary Twite

Sixth Respondent

Vincent Gregoire

Seventh Respondent

Penelope Pepperell

Eighth Respondent

Lydia McConnell

Ninth Respondent

Office of the Provost of the University of Melbourne

Tenth Respondent

Sean Hogan

Eleventh Respondent

Craig Bird

Twelfth Respondent

Angus McKenzie

Thirteenth Respondent

Glen Bartlett

Fourteenth Respondent

Michael Caswell

Fifteenth Respondent

Jackie Sarkies

Sixteenth Respondent

Anish Nagpal

Seventeenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Recusal of Judge – Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Justice Wheelahan should recuse himself for apprehended or actual bias in the proceedings between Thomas and The University of Melbourne and others

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's evidence of charitable donations to the University of Melbourne, and dissatisfaction with procedural rulings, do not establish a logical or reasonable connection that would cause a fair-minded lay observer to reasonably apprehend that Justice Wheelahan might not bring an impartial mind to the matters in dispute. There is no evidence of actual bias. Accordingly, the application for recusal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed

Orders

  • The application in paragraph 3 of the applicant's interlocutory application filed 19 November 2018 is dismissed.