Mathews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 191

Mathews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 191

It is in the interests of justice that the application for vexatious proceedings orders be heard by a judge other than the judge against whom the scandalous accusations have been made. While the accusations are abusive and offensive and there is no evidence to substantiate them, it is inappropriate for the subject judge to make a determination on them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders Under Vexatious Proceedings Provisions / Order for Hearing to Be Before Another Judge
Outcome
Application to be listed before another Judge
Legal Topics
['vexatious Proceedings' 'apprehended Bias' 'application for Certiorari']

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

Application for Orders Under Vexatious Proceedings Provisions / Order for Hearing to Be Before Another Judge

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is a vexatious litigant under Part VAAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)' 'Whether it is appropriate for Rangiah J to determine the application in light of scandalous accusations made against him' 'Whether the accusations made against Rangiah J should be determined as scandalous and unfounded in this proceeding']

Ratio Decidendi

It is in the interests of justice that the application for vexatious proceedings orders be heard by a judge other than the judge against whom the scandalous accusations have been made. While the accusations are abusive and offensive and there is no evidence to substantiate them, it is inappropriate for the subject judge to make a determination on them.

Court Disposition

Application to be listed before another Judge

Orders

  • ['The application for orders under Part VAAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) filed by the first respondent be listed for hearing before a judge other than Rangiah J.']