Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 9) [2020] FCA 275 File numbers: SAD 49 of 2017 NSD 1610 of 2016
Judge: KERR J
Date of judgment: 3 March 2020
Date of publication of reasons: 5 March 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for recusal on the basis of apprehended bias – application arising out of refusal of trial judge to grant adjournment application –circumstances raised found not to relevantly engage the principles set out in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337 – application dismissed
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 575(2), 653 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 20(2)
Cases cited: CUR24 v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2012] NSWCA 65; 83 NSWLR 385 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; 201 CLR 488 Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 5) [2019] FCA 1481 Martin v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia (No 7) [2020] FCA 5 R v George (1987) 9 NSWLR 527 Re Jarman; Ex parte Cook (No 1) [1997] HCA 13; 188 CLR 595
Date of hearing: 3 March 2020
Registry: Victoria
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