The High Court has refused an applicant leave to pursue judicial review alleging that a District Court judge was biased in family law proceedings. The court found that his account did not establish an arguable case that the judge could not decide the matter impartially.
The applicant sought to quash a District Court order lifting the in camera rule for a limited purpose, as well as the judge’s refusal to recuse herself. He also sought to prevent her from hearing future applications and to compel her to produce an order that would allow him to appeal the decision concerning the in camera rule.
The application was a preliminary, ex parte request for leave to seek certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The judge said the applicant had at least one appeal pending in the Circuit Court, where a District Court order could be reheard de novo. She said an appeal was the appropriate remedy, but considered the bias claim because the applicant argued that judicial review was more suitable.
The applicant alleged that, during the motion to lift the in camera rule, the judge handed legislation to a barrister acting for his former wife and advised her to refer to it. The barrister was also a party to that motion, which sought permission to use certain private family proceedings information to defend herself in anticipated High Court proceedings brought by the applicant. He also relied on earlier decisions, recusal requests and complaints about judges. The judgment records that two complaints to the Judicial Council were not upheld.
Assessing the applicant’s account at its highest, the High Court said judges may draw attention to applicable law, including by giving a party or lawyer a copy of a statute. The statute was not identified in the application, and the applicant had not shown that it was irrelevant, hidden from him or incorrectly stated. The court said the act did not, without more, show favour or bias, and found no cogent link between it and the outcome of the motion.
The District Court order permitted limited use of certain in camera information for the anticipated High Court hearing, restricted its dissemination to the barrister’s legal team, required undertakings and kept documents subject to the in camera rule. The High Court did not decide the merits of the arguments on that motion; it considered only whether the order was motivated by bias.
The court refused leave because the applicant’s account showed assertions of bias but no evidence establishing a reasonable apprehension of unfair bias. The final order refused leave to pursue the requested reliefs. The judge said no further court date was needed and that there were no costs implications arising from the ex parte application.