Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2022] FCA 1374

Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2022] FCA 1374

The disqualification application was dismissed because the earlier Full Court matters shared only a broad background with the present proceeding and raised discrete factual and public law issues under different legislation, so they did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The adjournment application...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceeding Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth), With Interlocutory Applications / Hearing of Oral Applications for Disqualification and Adjournment, and Interlocutory Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Amend the Originating Application
Outcome
The applicant's disqualification application was dismissed, the adjournment application was refused, the extension of time application was dismissed, and the application to amend the originating application was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, and the substantive proceeding was...
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'adjournment' 'amendment of Originating Application' 'extension of Time' 'costs' 'privacy Complaint Investigation']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'privacy Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'adjournment' 'amendment of Originating Application' 'extension of Time' 'costs' 'privacy Complaint Investigation']

Source-derived case record

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

Judicial Review Proceeding Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth), With Interlocutory Applications / Hearing of Oral Applications for Disqualification and Adjournment, and Interlocutory Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Amend the Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the judge should disqualify himself because he had been a member of Full Courts in earlier proceedings involving Dr Ogawa against a broader factual background related to the present case.' 'Whether the hearing of the interlocutory applications should be adjourned in circumstances where the applicant and the second respondent supported an adjournment but the first respondent did not.' "Whether an extension of time should be granted to challenge the Australian Information Commissioner's decision of 1 December 2021 under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)." "Whether leave should be granted to amend the originating application to challenge the Australian Information Commissioner's final decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) or s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The disqualification application was dismissed because the earlier Full Court matters shared only a broad background with the present proceeding and raised discrete factual and public law issues under different legislation, so they did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The adjournment application was refused because no adjournment order had been made, parties were required to be ready for the listed hearing, and case management considerations weighed against adjournment. The extension of time and amendment applications were dismissed because the proposed AD(JR) challenge was out of time without an acceptable explanation for delay, the proposed grounds were cast at such a...

Court Disposition

The applicant's disqualification application was dismissed, the adjournment application was refused, the extension of time application was dismissed, and the application to amend the originating application was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, and the substantive proceeding was...

Orders

  • ['The disqualification application be dismissed.' 'The application for an adjournment be refused.' "The application for an extension of time within which to challenge the first respondent's decision of 1 December 2021 under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) be dismissed." 'The application...