Mathews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 1264

Mathews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 1264

Collier J was not disqualified by apprehended bias because the earlier direction in QUD 532/2014 requiring the applicant to attend Court to prosecute his application, made when he had not sought leave to appear otherwise than in person, would not cause a fair-minded lay observer reasonably to apprehend that her Honour might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the applicant's substantive claims. Proper grounds for disqualification did not exist, and the interlocutory application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Disqualification for Apprehended Bias in Proceedings Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) / Interlocutory Application Filed 10 November 2015
Outcome
The interlocutory application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['apprehended Bias' 'judicial Recusal' 'non Appearance' 'proceedings on the Papers' 'assistance Dogs']
['practice and Procedure' 'human Rights'] ['apprehended Bias' 'judicial Recusal' 'non Appearance' 'proceedings on the Papers' 'assistance Dogs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Disqualification for Apprehended Bias in Proceedings Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) / Interlocutory Application Filed 10 November 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Collier J should disqualify herself from hearing the matter for apprehended bias arising from directions made in an earlier proceeding involving the applicant.' "Whether the applicant's non-appearance provided a basis for dismissal of the interlocutory application." 'Whether the applicant was entitled to have the interlocutory application heard ex parte and on the papers by describing it that way.']

Ratio Decidendi

Collier J was not disqualified by apprehended bias because the earlier direction in QUD 532/2014 requiring the applicant to attend Court to prosecute his application, made when he had not sought leave to appear otherwise than in person, would not cause a fair-minded lay observer reasonably to apprehend that her Honour might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the applicant's substantive claims. Proper grounds for disqualification did not exist, and the interlocutory application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed 10 November 2015 be dismissed.']