GP v The Hon Justice Bryant Chief Justice of the Family Court & Ors

The applicant, GP, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Chief Justice of the Family Court, the Hon Justice Bryant, and other respondents, concerning proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. The core of the dispute involved allegations of apprehended bias and a failure to provide procedural fairness in the conduct of Family Court proceedings involving GP.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Chief Justice's conduct and the decisions of the Family Court amounted to a denial of procedural fairness to GP. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Chief Justice's involvement in the case, including her alleged participation in decisions that GP contended were biased, and the subsequent refusal of GP's applications for recusal and other relief, breached the fundamental principles of natural justice.

In its reasoning, the High Court applied established principles of administrative law and the law relating to apprehended bias. The Court emphasised that for apprehended bias to be established, there must be a real possibility that a fair-minded lay observer, knowing the relevant facts, would perceive that the judge was not impartial. The Court examined the specific actions and decisions of the Chief Justice and the Family Court, assessing whether these actions could reasonably give rise to such a perception. The Court found that the Chief Justice's actions, while perhaps appearing unusual, did not, in the circumstances, give rise to an apprehension of bias. The Court also considered the procedural steps taken by the Family Court in response to GP's applications, concluding that these steps did not constitute a denial of procedural fairness.

The High Court dismissed GP's application for judicial review.