290/2009 Margarula v Northern Territory of Australia

In the case of Margarula v Northern Territory of Australia, the applicant, Ms Margarula, sought the disqualification of the Hon Justice Reeves from hearing a matter due to concerns of apprehended bias. Ms Margarula raised this objection after becoming aware that the same issue could arise in the Mirrar application, which was due to be heard nine months later. Justice Reeves initially decided to disqualify himself after hearing submissions from the parties. The legal issue before the court was whether Justice Reeves should have disqualified himself from the proceedings.

The court considered the principles of apprehended bias and the circumstances in which the objection was raised. It found that the objection was not insubstantial and that there was a real doubt about which obligation should prevail: the duty to hear the matter or the duty to maintain the impartiality of the Court. The court considered the circumstances in which the objection was raised, including the early stage of the proceedings, the relative simplicity of arranging for another judge to hear the matter, and the potential waste of public resources and loss of time if the Full Court later ruled that Justice Reeves should have disqualified himself.

In light of these circumstances, the court concluded that the prudent course was for Justice Reeves to disqualify himself from the proceedings to avoid the risks of a calamitous outcome. The court also addressed procedural issues, including the appropriate procedure for applications of this kind, and determined that a formal notice of motion was appropriate. The court ultimately ordered that Justice Reeves disqualify himself from further hearing or determining the proceeding and that the costs of the motion be costs in the proceeding.