Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (No 2) [2008] FCA 2020

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink (No 2) [2008] FCA 2020

Tracey J refused to withdraw because the matters relied on by the applicant did not establish actual bias, prejudgment or procedural unfairness, and a fair minded lay observer would not conclude that his Honour might not bring an impartial mind to the proceeding. Leave to appeal was refused because the application was out of time with no adequate explanation, and in any event the order removing Jeff Whalan's name was not attended by sufficient doubt and would not cause substantial injustice; Mr Whalan was no longer Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink and retaining his name could disadvantage the applicant. The timetable orders were vacated and further time was granted because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review and Judicial Review of Centrelink Decisions / Interlocutory Hearing of Applications for Recusal, Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order, and Extension of Time to File Submissions on Competency
Outcome
Application for recusal refused; leave to appeal refused; prior timetable orders vacated; applicant granted further time to file and serve submissions.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'recusal for Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'extension of Time' 'competency Objection']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'recusal for Bias' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'extension of Time' 'competency Objection']

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 an Order of Review and Judicial Review of Centrelink Decisions / Interlocutory Hearing of Applications for Recusal, Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Order, and Extension of Time to File Submissions on Competency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Tracey J should withdraw from hearing the proceeding on grounds of actual bias, prejudgment and lack of procedural fairness.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory order removing the name Jeff Whalan from the title of the first respondent.' "Whether the applicant should be given further time to file and serve submissions in response to the respondents' submissions on competency."]

Ratio Decidendi

Tracey J refused to withdraw because the matters relied on by the applicant did not establish actual bias, prejudgment or procedural unfairness, and a fair minded lay observer would not conclude that his Honour might not bring an impartial mind to the proceeding. Leave to appeal was refused because the application was out of time with no adequate explanation, and in any event the order removing Jeff Whalan's name was not attended by sufficient doubt and would not cause substantial injustice; Mr Whalan was no longer Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink and retaining his name could disadvantage the applicant. The timetable orders were vacated and further time was granted because the...

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused; leave to appeal refused; prior timetable orders vacated; applicant granted further time to file and serve submissions.

Orders

  • ['The application that Justice Tracey withdraw from hearing the proceeding be refused.' 'Leave to appeal from the order made in paragraph 1 of the Orders made herein on 20 August 2008 be refused.' 'The Orders made on 20 August 2008 numbered 2, 3 and 4 be vacated.' "The Applicant file and serve any submissions in...