Eastman v Australian Capital Territory

The Full Federal Court heard an appeal concerning the exercise of executive power to grant prerogative relief. The appellant, Mr. Eastman, sought to challenge a decision made by the respondent, the Australian Capital Territory, alleging improper exercise of power due to bias or apprehended bias stemming from public statements made by the relevant decision-maker.

The central legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the public statements made by the decision-maker demonstrated bias or apprehended bias, thereby rendering the administrative decision invalid. This required the Court to consider the threshold for establishing apprehended bias in the context of executive decision-making and the appropriate standard of review for such claims.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the public statements, when considered in their full context, did not establish a case of apprehended bias. The reasoning focused on the nature of the statements and whether they indicated a pre-judgment of the matter or a closed mind on the part of the decision-maker. The Court applied established principles of administrative law regarding apprehended bias, emphasizing that the test is an objective one, based on what a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.