Luck v Secretary, Department of Human Services (No 3) [2016] FCA 100

Luck v Secretary, Department of Human Services (No 3) [2016] FCA 100

There was no reasonable basis for apprehended bias on the part of Justice Bromberg as the prior judgment did not demonstrate a pre-formed view or antipathy relevant to the issues in the current proceedings, and the applicant's removal and special leave applications to the High Court did not warrant a stay since they had no prospects of success and staying would not serve the interests of justice or efficient resolution.

Parties
Applicant: Gaye Luck; First Respondent: Secretary of the Department of Human Services; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Third Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Deputy President S A Forgie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Within Federal Appeal / Interlocutory (applications for Recusal and Stay)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Apprehended Bias, Judicial Recusal, Stay of Proceedings, Removal to High Court, Disability Discrimination, Procedural Fairness
Practice and Procedure Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Freedom of Information Apprehended Bias Judicial Recusal Stay of Proceedings Removal to High Court +1 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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaye Luck

Applicant

Secretary of the Department of Human Services

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Deputy President S A Forgie

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application Within Federal Appeal / Interlocutory (applications for Recusal and Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Justice Bromberg should recuse himself on the ground of apprehended bias due to prior involvement in a related matter involving the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether a stay or adjournment should be granted in VID65/2010 pending High Court removal and special leave applications.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no reasonable basis for apprehended bias on the part of Justice Bromberg as the prior judgment did not demonstrate a pre-formed view or antipathy relevant to the issues in the current proceedings, and the applicant's removal and special leave applications to the High Court did not warrant a stay since they had no prospects of success and staying would not serve the interests of justice or efficient resolution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's interlocutory application dated 23 October 2015 be dismissed.
  • On or before 1 March 2016, the applicant file and serve any submission in relation to the costs of the application, and any affidavits in support.