Dekker & Rapallino (No 2)
Case
•
[2024] FedCFamC1F 726
•1 November 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dekker & Rapallino (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 726
[2024] FedCFamC1F 726
1 November 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Dekker & Rapallino (No 2), the wife, Ms Rapallino, sought a stay of the final property orders made by the Family Court on 11 July 2024. The wife also sought the recusal of the trial judge, His Honour Judge Hartnett, on the basis of actual or apprehended bias. The husband, Mr Dekker, opposed the wife's application for a stay and for the judge to recuse himself. The legal issues before the court were whether the wife had established grounds for the trial judge to recuse himself and whether the totality of the final property orders should be stayed pending the determination of the wife's appeal against those orders.
The court found that the wife had not established actual bias on the part of the trial judge. The wife's complaints related to findings made by the trial judge and the administrative actions of the Court, rather than any bias on the part of the judge. The court held that the wife's submissions did not address the established tests for bias and were largely irrelevant to the issue of bias. The court also found that the wife had not established apprehended bias, as her complaints did not suggest that a fair-minded observer, having the knowledge they had, would apprehend that the trial judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions arising in the proceedings.
The court refused to grant the wife's application for the trial judge to recuse himself and denied the wife's application for a stay of the totality of the final property orders. However, the court granted a stay of certain parts of the final property orders pending the determination of the wife's appeal against those orders. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs of the proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that certain parts of the final property orders of 11 July 2024 be stayed pending the determination of the wife's appeal, that the wife's application for the trial judge to recuse himself be dismissed, and that the wife pay the husband's costs of the proceedings.
The court found that the wife had not established actual bias on the part of the trial judge. The wife's complaints related to findings made by the trial judge and the administrative actions of the Court, rather than any bias on the part of the judge. The court held that the wife's submissions did not address the established tests for bias and were largely irrelevant to the issue of bias. The court also found that the wife had not established apprehended bias, as her complaints did not suggest that a fair-minded observer, having the knowledge they had, would apprehend that the trial judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions arising in the proceedings.
The court refused to grant the wife's application for the trial judge to recuse himself and denied the wife's application for a stay of the totality of the final property orders. However, the court granted a stay of certain parts of the final property orders pending the determination of the wife's appeal against those orders. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs of the proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that certain parts of the final property orders of 11 July 2024 be stayed pending the determination of the wife's appeal, that the wife's application for the trial judge to recuse himself be dismissed, and that the wife pay the husband's costs of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Costs
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Dunne (a pseudonym) v Lloyd (a pseudonym) [No 2] [2025] WASCA 122
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Rapallino & Dekker (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC1A 25
Dunne (a pseudonym) v Lloyd (a pseudonym) [No 2]
[2025] WASCA 122
Rapallino & Dekker (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC1A 25
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
2
Mazhar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 1759
South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds
[2007] NSWCA 16
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[2000] HCA 63