ABA Australian Bar Association Ltd v Minus (No.2)

[2019] FCCA 176

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABA AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION LTD & ORS v MINUS (No.2) [2019] FCCA 176

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Application for recusal – where applicant decided not to proceed with application for the Court to recuse itself – application for recusal dismissed.  

First Applicant: ABA AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(ACN 605 949 148)

Second Applicant: PHILIP SELTH IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(ABN 12 205 148 843) (UNINCORPORATED)

Third Applicant: THE NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION (ACN 000 033 652)

Respondent: DEREK MICHAEL MINUS

File Number: SYG 2914 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 25 January 2019

Date of Last Submission: 25 January 2019

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 25 January 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Davies

Solicitors for the Applicant: Webb Henderson

The Respondent appeared in person.

ORDERS

BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The relief sought in the application in a case to have the Court recuse itself is dismissed.

Date of order: 25 January 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG2914 of 2018

ABA AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(ACN 605 949 148)

First Applicant

PHILIP SELTH IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(ABN 12 205 148 843) (UNINCORPORATED)

Second Applicant

THE NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION
(ACN 000 033 652)

Third Applicant

And

DEREK MICHAEL MINUS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Court notes that Mr Minus has indicated he does not seek to proceed with the request for the Court to recuse itself.  The Court notes that at the commencement of the hearing before the hearing of the sequestration proceeding, the Court disclosed matters that were identified in the reasons for judgment of the Court that were delivered on 20 December 2018. The Court identified that it did not regard those circumstances as ones by reason of which a fair‑minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that this Court might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits.

2. The Court notes that Mr Minus has indicated that he is concerned that if the substantive application concerning the setting aside of the orders is referred to another judge that may give rise to further delay, and it is in those circumstances that he sees himself in a difficulty and decided to withdraw the application for recusal.

3. The Court explained to Mr Minus it was a matter for him whether he wished to pursue the application for recusal and Mr Minus confirmed that he did not wish to pursue that application. It is for these reasons the Court has made the consent order.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 11 March 2019