Dawar and Dawar

[2019] FamCA 569

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAWAR & DAWAR [2019] FamCA 569

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISQUALIFICATION –Application for disqualification on the basis of actual bias and apprehended bias – Discussion of applicable principles – Where evidence does not support the wife’s application on either ground – Where application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Amendments (Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties) Act 2018 (Cth)

Anae v R [2018] NSWCCA 73
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Development Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55
Hartnett & Sampson [2008] FamCA 75
Huda & Huda & Laham [2018] FamCAFC 85

Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR

Johnson v Johnson (2000) CLR 488

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; 205 CLR
NADR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002) FCA 361
R v Watson [1976] HCA 39
Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd (2014) NSWCA 98

Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Ngyuen [2016] NSWCA 88

APPLICANT: Ms Dawar

RESPONDENT: Mr Dawar

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Barker & Barker Solicitors

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1974 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 4 September 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Henderson J

HEARING DATE: 7 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-Represented Litigant

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Haddock

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Barker & Barker Solicitors

Orders

1. The applicant wife’s Application in a Case dated 29 April 2019 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dawar & Dawar has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: CAC1974/2017

Ms Dawar

Applicant

And

Mr Dawar

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This was an application by the wife that I disqualify myself for actual bias and apprehended bias against her in final property and parenting proceedings.

2. The wife was self-represented as she has been throughout this matter. Mr Haddock of Counsel acted for the husband and Mr Ridge, Independent Children’s Lawyer, acted for the children.

3. Both Mr Haddock and Mr Ridge submitted that I had not shown either actual bias or apprehended bias towards the wife throughout the proceedings.

4. I asked the wife during the proceedings if her application was that I had shown actual bias or an apprehension of bias. Whilst her response was unclear, it appears to me it is both actual bias and an apprehension of bias.

5. For…