Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2004] FCA 977

Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2004] FCA 977

No evidence or basis has been provided that warrants the serious step of disqualification; neither alleged personal acquaintance nor the judge's possible access to excluded materials supports grounds for apprehension of bias.

Parties
Applicant: Timothy John Shelton; First Respondent: National Roads and Motorists Association Limited; Second Respondent: Ross Vincent Turnbull; Third Respondent: Alan Hanson Evans; Fourth Respondent: Graham John Blight; Fifth Respondent: David Gordon Cadell Brownhill; Sixth Respondent: Jonathan Keith Brett; Seventh Respondent: John Richard Edwards; Eighth Respondent: Kenneth Michael Hill; Ninth Respondent: Judith Olga Stack; Tenth Respondent: Laurence Joseph Maher; Eleventh Respondent: Geoffrey Robert Toovey; Twelfth Respondent: Alix Louise Sauvage; Thirteenth Respondent: Michael Thomas Tynan; Fourteenth Respondent: Victor John Smith; Fifteenth Respondent: Mark Edward Waugh
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Disqualification / Interlocutory Decision on Disqualification Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Apprehension of Bias, Judicial Disqualification
Courts and Judicial System Apprehension of Bias Judicial Disqualification

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy John Shelton

Applicant

National Roads and Motorists Association Limited

First Respondent

Ross Vincent Turnbull

Second Respondent

Alan Hanson Evans

Third Respondent

Graham John Blight

Fourth Respondent

David Gordon Cadell Brownhill

Fifth Respondent

Jonathan Keith Brett

Sixth Respondent

John Richard Edwards

Seventh Respondent

Kenneth Michael Hill

Eighth Respondent

Judith Olga Stack

Ninth Respondent

Laurence Joseph Maher

Tenth Respondent

Geoffrey Robert Toovey

Eleventh Respondent

Alix Louise Sauvage

Twelfth Respondent

Michael Thomas Tynan

Thirteenth Respondent

Victor John Smith

Fourteenth Respondent

Mark Edward Waugh

Fifteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Disqualification / Interlocutory Decision on Disqualification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grounds exist for disqualification of the judge due to apprehension of bias
  2. 2 Whether the judge's access to materials excluded from parties warrants disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

No evidence or basis has been provided that warrants the serious step of disqualification; neither alleged personal acquaintance nor the judge's possible access to excluded materials supports grounds for apprehension of bias.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for disqualification is dismissed with costs.