Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Hillier v Martin (No 9) [2021] FCA 1319 File number: SAD 113 of 2020
Judgment of: CHARLESWORTH J
Date of judgment: 19 October 2021
Date of publication of reasons: 27 October 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an order that the presiding Judge be recused on the grounds of apprehended bias – recusal applicant alleging professional connections between presiding Judge and Counsel for another party – recusal applicant alleging the presiding Judge and Counsel share a mutual close friend – recusal applicant alleging wrongdoing against Counsel – recusal applicant alleging apprehended bias based on the Court's constraint in responding to the allegations of wrongdoing – consideration of the principles discussed in Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29 – application dismissed
Cases cited: Ambrose v Badcock [2021] FCA 881 Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Hillier v Martin [2021] FCA 269 Hillier v Martin (No 2) [2021] FCA 509 Hillier v Martin (No 3) [2021] FCA 709 Hillier v Martin (No 4) [2021] FCA 710 Hillier v Martin (No 5) [2021] FCA 949 Hillier v Martin (No 6) [2021] FCA 1009 Hillier v Martin (No 7) [2021] FCA 1221 Hillier v Martin (No 8) [2021] FCA 1272 Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568
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