AZO24 v Registrar, Registry of New South Wales, Federal Court of Australia (No 3)

The case before the court involved an application by a party to have a particular judge recuse themselves from presiding over any matters in a proceeding due to a perceived lack of impartiality. The application was made in the context of an appeal that had already been lodged against the judge's decision in the proceeding. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory application.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the judge to recuse themselves, particularly in light of the pending appeal against the judge's decision. The applicant argued that the judge's decision had been influenced by factors that suggested a lack of impartiality, and that the judge should not preside over any further matters in the proceeding until the appeal had been resolved. The respondent, the Registrar, argued that the applicant's reasons for seeking recusal were not sufficient to warrant the judge's removal from the case.

In considering the application, the court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient reasoning to justify the judge's recusal. The court noted that the applicant's decision to appeal the judge's earlier decision did not, in and of itself, establish a lack of impartiality. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the judge's decision was influenced by any factors that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As such, the court dismissed the interlocutory application, finding that there were no grounds for the judge to recuse themselves from presiding over any further matters in the proceeding.

The court's decision effectively meant that the judge was not required to recuse themselves from the proceeding, and was free to continue presiding over any matters that arose in the case. The applicant's appeal against the judge's earlier decision would continue to be heard by a different judge, as the original decision-maker was not recused.