Seidler v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2011] FCA 1326

Seidler v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2011] FCA 1326

The applicant did not establish actual or apprehended bias under the Ebner test; dissatisfaction with earlier procedural decisions, alleged misunderstanding of her condition, and the conduct of prior hearings did not logically support disqualification. The applications to restrain Bartier Perry from acting also failed because they were not brought by a procedurally effective means against the practitioners and lacked evidence. The remaining applications for listing before other judges, suppression or anonymisation, chambers determination, and s 50 orders were dismissed, including where the applicant was content for dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Interlocutory Applications in Proceedings Including Applications for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Applications for Recusal, Restraint of Respondents' Solicitors From Acting, S 50 Orders, Listing and Related Orders
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['recusal of Judicial Officer' 'apprehended Bias' 'legal Practitioners Acting in Proceedings' 'confidential Information' 'suppression and Anonymisation Orders' 'case Management' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['recusal of Judicial Officer' 'apprehended Bias' 'legal Practitioners Acting in Proceedings' 'confidential Information' 'suppression and Anonymisation Orders' 'case Management' 'costs']

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

Practice and Procedure; Interlocutory Applications in Proceedings Including Applications for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Applications for Recusal, Restraint of Respondents' Solicitors From Acting, S 50 Orders, Listing and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Perram J should disqualify himself on the basis of actual or apprehended bias.' 'Whether Bartier Perry should be restrained from acting for the respondents in the proceedings.' 'Whether applications for orders under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) should be dismissed.' 'Whether the matters should be listed before or transferred to other judges, or determined in chambers.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish actual or apprehended bias under the Ebner test; dissatisfaction with earlier procedural decisions, alleged misunderstanding of her condition, and the conduct of prior hearings did not logically support disqualification. The applications to restrain Bartier Perry from acting also failed because they were not brought by a procedurally effective means against the practitioners and lacked evidence. The remaining applications for listing before other judges, suppression or anonymisation, chambers determination, and s 50 orders were dismissed, including where the applicant was content for dismissal.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 1 November 2011 be dismissed with costs.' 'The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 3 November 2011 be dismissed with costs.' 'The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 19 October 2011 for orders pursuant to s 50 of the Federal...