Hillier v Martin (No 15) [2022] FCA 996

Hillier v Martin (No 15) [2022] FCA 996

The adjournment was refused because the respondents and Mr Martin had long been aware of the relevant circumstances, had been granted liberty to apply to vary or vacate programming orders but did not do so, had not shown prompt action or provided evidence of efforts to secure counsel, and any prejudice from late submissions could be managed without vacating the hearing. The disqualification application was refused because the alleged error concerning when the Supreme Court proceedings became known was not made or was immaterial, the broader history relied on by Mr Martin was inaccurate or insufficient to satisfy the Ebner test, adverse interlocutory rulings and judicial case management...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations Interlocutory Proceeding / Written Reasons for Dismissal of Oral Applications for an Adjournment and for Disqualification of the Presiding Judge
Outcome
The oral application for an adjournment and the oral application for disqualification of the presiding judge were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'case Management' 'waiver' 'interlocutory Injunctions']
['commercial and Corporations' 'civil Procedure' 'judicial Bias'] ['adjournment' 'apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'case Management' 'waiver' 'interlocutory Injunctions']

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

Commercial and Corporations Interlocutory Proceeding / Written Reasons for Dismissal of Oral Applications for an Adjournment and for Disqualification of the Presiding Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents and non-party Mr Thomas Martin should be granted an adjournment of the hearing of Mr Hillier's interlocutory application." 'Whether the presiding judge should be disqualified on the ground of apprehended bias.' 'Whether prior events in the proceedings and alleged errors in reasoning could support a reasonable apprehension that the Court might not bring an impartial mind to the issues.' 'Whether principles of waiver precluded reliance on earlier known matters as grounds for disqualification.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the respondents and Mr Martin had long been aware of the relevant circumstances, had been granted liberty to apply to vary or vacate programming orders but did not do so, had not shown prompt action or provided evidence of efforts to secure counsel, and any prejudice from late submissions could be managed without vacating the hearing. The disqualification application was refused because the alleged error concerning when the Supreme Court proceedings became known was not made or was immaterial, the broader history relied on by Mr Martin was inaccurate or insufficient to satisfy the Ebner test, adverse interlocutory rulings and judicial case management...

Court Disposition

The oral application for an adjournment and the oral application for disqualification of the presiding judge were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The oral application for an adjournment made by the respondents and the non-party Mr Thomas Martin is dismissed.' 'The oral application of the non-party Mr Thomas Martin for an order that the presiding judge be disqualified is dismissed.']