PD v President, Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2021] FCA 851

PD v President, Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2021] FCA 851

The applicant’s previous involvement as a party in cases decided by the judge, including adverse rulings and findings, does not, without more, establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. There is no external evidence of prejudgment or partiality. Thus, the application for disqualification is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: PD; First Respondent: President of the Australian Human Rights Commission; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Disqualification of Judge for Apprehended Bias
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Judge, Apprehended Bias
Practice and Procedure Disqualification of Judge Apprehended Bias

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PD

Applicant

President of the Australian Human Rights Commission

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Disqualification of Judge for Apprehended Bias

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether previous decisions by the presiding judge involving the applicant give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s previous involvement as a party in cases decided by the judge, including adverse rulings and findings, does not, without more, establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. There is no external evidence of prejudgment or partiality. Thus, the application for disqualification is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory application for the disqualification of Rangiah J be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.