Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Webb v GetSwift Limited (No 6) [2020] FCA 1292 File number: NSD 580 of 2018
Judgment of: LEE J
Date of judgment: 9 September 2020
Catchwords: COURTS AND JUDGES – principles of apprehended bias in the context of judge hearing a regulatory civil penalty proceeding and a Pt IVA class action consecutively – application for disqualification – brought for a second time after hearing of ASIC proceeding – factual issues in ASIC proceeding largely undisputed – no witnesses cross-examined as to credit – questions of law to be determined largely on the basis of contemporaneous documentary evidence – "core" bundle of documents common to both the ASIC proceeding and class action – not be required to be put out of mind for class action hearing – judgment in ASIC proceeding yet to be written or delivered – hypothetical observer would appreciate that any views formed at present are preliminary – no apparent issue as to application of the relevant standard of proof in the two proceedings – while a matter of "prudence" to disqualify in circumstances of uncertainty, not satisfied there are "substantial grounds" – broader public policy considerations as to the economies achieved by the same judge hearing a regulatory proceeding and the cognate class action – interlocutory application refused – leave to appeal granted
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 674, 677 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA
Cases cited: Aurora Funds Management Limited v Australian Government Takeovers Panel [2020] FCA 496; (2020) 144 ACSR 593 Axon v Axon (1937) 59 CLR 395 Bienstein v Bienstein [2003] HCA 7; (2003) 195 ALR 225 Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No 11) [2020] VSC 567 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 242 CLR 283 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Jackson McDonald (a firm) [2014] WASC 301 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 374 Health Care Complaints Commission v Wallach [2004] NSWSC 927 Isbester v Knox City Council [2015] HCA 20; (2015) 255 CLR 135 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1144; (2011) 202 FCR 439 Lee v Cha [2008] NSWCA 13 Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 McKenzie v Cash Converters International Ltd (No 3) [2019] FCA 10 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507 Morley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331; (2010) 274 ALR 205 R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (1969) 122 CLR 546 R v Watson; ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248 Webb v GetSwift Limited (No 5) [2019] FCA 1533 Wilson v Waigani Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 302
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