Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3) [2011] FCA 886 Citation: Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3) [2011] FCA 886
Parties: NOELENE MARGARET EDWARDS, CLANCY MCKELLAR, IONA DAWN SMITH, ERNEST (HOPE) EBSWORTH, ROSEMARY (ROSE) ANNE WILSON, MARGARET ANNE COLLINS, SHARLEEN LOUISE KNIGHT, ARCHIE ALFRED EBSWORTH v SANTOS LIMITED, STATE OF QUEENSLAND and DEHLI PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED
File number: QUD 86 of 2009
Judge: LOGAN J
Date of judgment: 5 August 2011
Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – apprehended bias – where matter summarily dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction – where leave to appeal refused by Full Court – where High Court issued certiorari – where judge made statements as to the applicable law but no findings as to fact – where High Court overturned those views of the relevant law – where those matters not pressed by respondents – no reasonable apprehension of bias HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – apprehended bias – waiver – whether seeking mandamus in the High Court can be considered a waiver of any conduct constituting bias – where applicant effectively pressed mandamus – where applicant did not seek that the matter be heard by a different judge in the High Court or Full Court – applicants had waived right to complain about apprehended bias
Legislation: The Constitution (Cth) ss 73, 75(v) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 5, 19, 24, 25, 31A, 33 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 32 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) r 8.02, r 25.06.1, r 25.07.2
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