FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 356
Citation: Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 356 Appeal from: Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130 Parties: QIZHI CHEN v MONASH UNIVERSITY, CHRIS DAVIES and GEORGE SIMON File number: VID 122 of 2015 Judge: PAGONE J Date of judgment: 9 April 2015 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Request for recusal of judge from case management of appeal – whether reasonable apprehension of bias – scope of judge’s obligation to disclose associations. Cases cited: Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225
Buzzacott v Hill (Transcript, 1 April 1999, Federal Court of Australia)
Eastman v Somes (No 2) 27 ALD 525
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Limbo v Little (1989) 65 NTR 19
R v Chairman of General Sessions at Hamilton; Ex Parte Atterby [1959] VR 800
S & M Motor Repairs Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 358Perry, M A, Disqualification of Judges: Practice and Procedure (2001) Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Date of hearing: 9 April 2015 Date of publication of reasons: 17 April 2015 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Ms R M Nelson Solicitor for the Respondents: Lander & Rogers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 122 of 2015
BETWEEN: QIZHI CHEN
AppellantAND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
First RespondentCHRIS DAVIES
Second RespondentGEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
PAGONE J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 APRIL 2015
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Request for recusal rejected.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 122 of 2015
BETWEEN: QIZHI CHEN
AppellantAND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
First RespondentCHRIS DAVIES
Second RespondentGEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
PAGONE J
DATE:
9 APRIL 2015
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant, Dr Qizhi Chen, requested that I recuse myself from sitting as the judge managing her appeal on the grounds of my connection with Monash University. Her application was made initially by letter dated 31 March 2015 and then orally at the case management hearing of her appeal on 9 April 2015. Her letter identified her ground for my recusal as being that:
[I am] a panel member of Monash University (Attachment). As such, the case is currently virtually managed by the Respondent University, which is inappropriate.
Her letter contained, as an attachment, a print of a page from the website of the Faculty of Law at Monash University, which stated that I have taught in the law faculty and that I am “a member of the Monash University Law Postgraduate Advisory Panel specialising in Commercial Law and [was] a recipient of the Monash University Distinguished Alumni Award”. The course identified on the website was a…
Continue reading Chen v Monash University
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 356
- Case
- [2015] FCA 356
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue was whether Justice Edelman’s engagement by Monash University gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the case management of the appeal. The court considered whether Justice Edelman had a duty to disclose his 2018 engagement by Monash University and whether this engagement created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that there was no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias and rejected Chen’s application for recusal. The court found that there was no material or circumstance that suggested any actual bias or apprehended bias on the part of Justice Edelman.
The court held that Justice Edelman was not under a duty to disclose his engagement by Monash University as a consultant in 2018. The court found that the engagement was not “material” for the purposes of the obligation to disclose associations that might give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court found that the engagement was not recent or related to the subject matter of the appeal. The court also held that the engagement did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court found that the engagement did not involve a matter that was likely to be before the court or a matter that was substantially similar to the subject matter of the appeal. The court found that there was no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias and rejected Chen’s application for recusal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Request for recusal rejected.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.