Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shelton v National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2004] FCA 977
COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM - Application for disqualification of judge - Apprehension of bias - Disqualification of judge not to be based on speculative suggestion or mere possibility - No basis for submission - Judge viewing materials from proceedings which the present parties may not access - No basis for disqualification - Application dismissed. Livesy v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 discussed Johnson v Johnson (2000) 174 ALR 655 discussed Bienstein v Beinstein (2003) 195 ALR 225 discussed Miller v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2001] FCA 1198 discussed Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 discussed TIMOTHY JOHN SHELTON v NATIONAL ROADS AND MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION LIMITED AND ORS N35 OF 2004 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 27 JULY 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N35 OF 2004
BETWEEN: TIMOTHY JOHN SHELTON
APPLICANT
AND: NATIONAL ROADS AND MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION LIMITED
ACN 000 010 156
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
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate