Commonwealth of Australia (As Represented BY the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Shirvington (No.2)

In the matter of *Commonwealth of Australia (As Represented By the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Shirvington (No.2)*, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was required to determine applications for interim injunctions made by Mr Shirvington and Mrs Rigney. The Commonwealth was the applicant in proceedings concerning the respondents' tenancies.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether there was a sufficient basis for the respondents' apprehension of bias on the part of the judge, and whether the evidence supported their claims for interim injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court considered whether the judge had unfairly dismissed Mrs Rigney's evidence and whether statements made during interlocutory proceedings indicated a predetermined view regarding Mr Shirvington's application.

The Court reasoned that the previous judgment concerning Mrs Rigney did not reject her evidence but rather found it lacked the necessary substantiation to support an apprehension that the Commonwealth would act inconsistently with its obligations under her tenancy agreement. The judge clarified that the proceedings were being conducted on the basis that Mrs Rigney's rights were governed by the *Residential Tenancies Act 2010* (NSW), which required a court order for termination. Regarding Mr Shirvington's application, the Court found that the assertion of bias based on a comment about the anticipated length of an interlocutory application was unfounded, distinguishing it from cases where a judge's remarks indicated a prejudgment of substantive arguments. The judge noted that a statement about the likely duration of an application did not, without more, give rise to an apprehension of bias, as it did not predetermine the outcome.