Chranley & Smart (No. 9)

In *Chranley & Smart (No. 9)*, Strickland J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father seeking the disqualification of a judge. The father's complaint stemmed from the dismissal of his applications, including a contempt application, and alleged that the judge had made orders without considering or being supported by evidence. The father also contended that the judge had failed to comply with court procedures, protocols, and guidelines.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the judge had demonstrated bias, thereby warranting disqualification, and whether the father had established any basis for his complaints regarding the dismissal of his applications. Additionally, the court considered an application by the father for leave to file a further application, which was problematic due to the father's failure to identify the specific application for which leave was sought.

Strickland J applied the test for bias established in *Johnson & Johnson (No. 3)* (2000) FLC 93-041, finding that the father had not met this threshold. The court noted that the father had failed to identify any specific authority, law, or rule of court that the judge had allegedly breached. Furthermore, the affidavits provided by the father did not establish any valid basis for the complaints or the orders sought. Consequently, the application for disqualification was dismissed. The court also dismissed the father's application for leave to file, as he had not identified the application for which leave was sought.

The court ordered the dismissal and removal from the active pending cases list of the Application in a Case filed by the father on 11 September 2007. The hearing of a further Application in a Case filed by the father on 24 September 2007 was brought forward and the previously scheduled hearing before Justice Dawe was vacated, with this application also being dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.