Fadel and Jarrah (No. 2)

In Fadel & Jarrah (No. 2), the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Jarrah, seeking the disqualification of Justice Stevenson from hearing contested parenting proceedings. The application was supported by an affidavit from the father alleging perceived bias and a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that Justice Stevenson might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions before her. This required the court to apply the established test for apprehended bias, which involves identifying the matters that might lead to a judge deciding a case other than on its merits and articulating the logical connection between those matters and the feared deviation.

Justice Stevenson reasoned that the father's affidavit failed to identify any objective basis for his suspicions and speculations regarding bias. The court found that the father had not established what it was said might lead the judge to decide the case other than on its merits, nor had he articulated a logical connection between his concerns and a feared deviation from impartial decision-making. The judge noted that the father's claims of external contact were unsubstantiated and that his disagreement with previous judicial decisions did not, in itself, demonstrate bias. The court concluded that the father had not advanced any reason why it should disqualify itself from hearing the matter.

The father's application for disqualification was dismissed.