Chen v Monash University

Case [2015] FCA 356


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 358
Perry, 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
Appellant

AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIES
Second Respondent

GEORGE 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
Appellant

AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIES
Second Respondent

GEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

PAGONE J

DATE:

9 APRIL 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 356
Case
[2015] FCA 356
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen sought an order for the recusal of Justice Edelman from case management of an appeal on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. Monash University had engaged Justice Edelman as a consultant in 2018. Chen submitted that Justice Edelman’s failure to disclose this engagement to the court constituted a breach of his obligation to disclose associations that might give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The primary judge held that there was no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias and rejected Chen’s application for recusal.

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.