Hillier v Martin (No 19) [2024] FCA 210

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hillier v Martin (No 19) [2024] FCA 210 File number(s): SAD 113 of 2020

Judgment of: O'SULLIVAN J

Date of judgment: 8 March 2024

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – Legal Professional Privilege – where fourth to sixth respondents claimed various documents to be subject to legal professional privilege on behalf of the first respondent – whether by reason of an iniquity the documents have either had privilege displaced or never attracted the privilege in the first place – whether there is prima facie evidence of iniquity – order made for production of documents and inspection PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an order that the presiding judge be recused on the grounds of both actual and apprehended bias – first respondent alleging bias on the basis that the presiding judge had previously heard and issued a decision on an interlocutory application involving the applicant in another Court – where no factual findings were made in that decision – no cogent (or any) evidence of actual bias – no material identified such that a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide – application dismissed

Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 Australian Consumer Law, ss 237, 243 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 55, 118, 119 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 35A(7)(b), 37M(1), 37N(1), 37N(4), 51A Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 20.17(2)(c) Trustee Act 1936 (SA)