Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3) [2011] FCA 886

Citation: Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3) [2011] FCA 886
Parties: NOELENE MARGARET EDWARDS, CLANCY MCKELLAR, IONA DAWN SMITH, ERNEST (HOPE) EBSWORTH, ROSEMARY (ROSE) ANNE WILSON, MARGARET ANNE COLLINS, SHARLEEN LOUISE KNIGHT, ARCHIE ALFRED EBSWORTH v SANTOS LIMITED, STATE OF QUEENSLAND and DEHLI PETROLEUM PTY LIMITED
File number: QUD 86 of 2009
Judge: LOGAN J
Date of judgment: 5 August 2011
Catchwords:

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – apprehended bias – where matter summarily dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction – where leave to appeal refused by Full Court – where High Court issued certiorari – where judge made statements as to the applicable law but no findings as to fact – where High Court overturned those views of the relevant law – where those matters not pressed by respondents – no reasonable apprehension of bias

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – apprehended bias – waiver – whether seeking mandamus in the High Court can be considered a waiver of any conduct constituting bias – where applicant effectively pressed mandamus – where applicant did not seek that the matter be heard by a different judge in the High Court or Full Court – applicants had waived right to complain about apprehended bias  
Legislation: The Constitution (Cth) ss 73, 75(v)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 5, 19, 24, 25, 31A, 33
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 32
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
High Court Rules2004 (Cth) r 8.02, r 25.06.1, r 25.07.2
Cases cited: Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (No 14) [2010] FCA 696 cited
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 followed
Edwards v Santos Ltd (2009) 263 ALR 473 cited
Edwards v Santos Limited [2010] FCA 34 cited
Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 238 cited
Edwards v Santos Limited (2010) 185 FCR 280 cited
Edwards v Santos Limited [2010] HCATrans 213 cited
Edwards v Santos Limited [2010] HCATrans 318 cited
Edwards v Santos Limited (2011) 85 ALJR 464 cited
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 followed
Livesey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 referred to
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang (2003) 215 CLR 518 considered
Northern NSW FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 26 FCR 39 considered
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation of Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 389 cited
R v Watson, ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248 considered
Ramadan v New South Wales Insurance Ministerial Council (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, Kirby P, 7 April 1995, BC9507292) applied
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 considered
Re McCory; ex parte Rivett (1895) 21 VLR 3 considered
S. & M. Motor Repairs v Caltex Oil (1998) 12 NSWLR 358 considered
Sillery v The Queen (1981) 180 CLR 353 applied
The Lardil Peoples v Queensland (2001) 108 FCR 453 cited
Vakauta v Kelly (1989)…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] FCA 886
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edwards v Santos Limited (No 3) involved the applicants, who were seeking to challenge the dismissal of their case due to apprehended bias, appealing to the High Court against the Federal Court's refusal of their application for leave to appeal. The applicants had originally been involved in proceedings against Santos Limited, which were dismissed due to an apprehended bias by a judge. The Federal Court had previously dismissed their application for leave to appeal against this decision, and the applicants sought to appeal this decision to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had waived their right to complain about the apprehended bias by seeking a remedy of mandamus in the High Court. The court was required to determine whether the act of seeking mandamus in the High Court could be considered a waiver of any conduct constituting bias, and whether the applicants had effectively pressed their mandamus application.

The High Court found that the applicants had indeed waived their right to complain about the apprehended bias. The court held that seeking mandamus in the High Court was a form of pressing the matter, and since the applicants did not seek that the matter be heard by a different judge in the High Court or Full Court, they had effectively waived their right to complain about the apprehended bias. The court also noted that the matters not pressed by the respondents did not affect the outcome of the case.

The High Court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to appeal and affirmed the decision of the Full Court. The court held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the applicants had waived their right to complain about the apprehended bias by seeking mandamus in the High Court. The application made by the applicants' notice of motion filed 9 June 2011 is dismissed, as per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application made by the applicants’ notice of motion filed 9 June 2011 is dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.