Moles v The University of Adelaide [2001] FCA 1666

Moles v The University of Adelaide [2001] FCA 1666

The applicants did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge's comments at the interlocutory stage were provisional, were made in the context of an urgent interlocutory application and the material then available, and did not indicate prejudgment of the claim for specific performance or any closed...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Motion for Disqualification or Re Docketing on the Ground of Apprehended or Imputed Bias / Motion Dated 20 November 2001 Heard After Refusal of Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
The applicants' motion dated 20 November 2001 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['apprehension of Bias' 'imputed Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'interlocutory Relief' 'specific Performance' 'adequacy of Damages']
['practice and Procedure' 'courts and the Judicial System'] ['apprehension of Bias' 'imputed Bias' 'judicial Disqualification' 'interlocutory Relief' 'specific Performance' 'adequacy of Damages']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Motion for Disqualification or Re Docketing on the Ground of Apprehended or Imputed Bias / Motion Dated 20 November 2001 Heard After Refusal of Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether comments made by the judge during the interlocutory hearing and in the interlocutory judgment gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.' 'Whether the matter should be re-docketed to another judge of the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge's comments at the interlocutory stage were provisional, were made in the context of an urgent interlocutory application and the material then available, and did not indicate prejudgment of the claim for specific performance or any closed mind at trial. A fair-minded observer aware of the nature and purpose of interlocutory hearings would not reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the issues at the final hearing.

Court Disposition

The applicants' motion dated 20 November 2001 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' motion date 20 November 2001 be dismissed."]