Hanna v Flinders University - [2025] SASC 6

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Civil)
HANNA v FLINDERS UNIVERSITY
[2025] SASC 6
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hughes
29 January 2025
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FOR BIAS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
COURTS AND JUDGES - JUDGES - DISQUALIFICATION FOR INTEREST OR BIAS
The appellant sought to appeal a decision by a Magistrate to not recuse herself.
The application for the Magistrate to recuse herself was brought in the context of proceedings involving the original claim brought by the appellant in the Magistrates Court which sought payment from Flinders University and a variety of other orders. Amongst other interlocutory applications, the appellant sought discovery from the respondent. The Magistrate did not grant access to all of the documents that were requested, and the appellant appealed this decision. The appellant was partially successful on appeal of the discovery orders.
After the refusal of the discovery application by the Magistrate, the appellant brought the application for the Magistrate to recuse herself. The Magistrate declined to do so and delivered ex tempore reasons.
The appellant submitted fifteen grounds of appeal and raised additional grounds during the appeal, summarised as:
1.      Complaints about the Magistrate’s response to the appellant’s discovery application;
2.      Complaints about the Magistrate’s response to the appellant’s request for transfer of the proceedings;
3.      Complaints about the Magistrate’s response to the appellant’s request for “specific performance”;
4.      Allegations regarding the Magistrate’s “consistent” rulings in favour of the respondent, her failure to understand the proceedings, and treatment of the recusal application.
5.      The Magistrate’s dismissive attitude to the appellant; and
6.      The Magistrate’s association with the firm of lawyers representing the respondent.
Held, refusing leave to appeal:
1.      The appeal, against a bare recusal, is not amenable to appeal.
2.      If the appeal is competent, leave is refused because the appellant did not demonstrate that:
a. there was a reasonable prospect of establishing error in the Magistrate’s reasons for declining to recuse herself;
b. the Magistrate’s conduct during the interlocutory stages of the action gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, or supported a conclusion of actual bias;
c. there was an arguable case that the Magistrate should have disqualified herself in respect of the Magistrate’s past employment with the respondent’s solicitors. Mere association through former employment is unlikely, without more, to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; or
d. the Magistrate had had dealings, outside of the court, with the respondent’s solicitors with respect to the proceedings.

Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) ss 3, 40, 42; District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 43, referred to.
QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 409 ALR 65; Flowers v Hicks [2024] SASCA 126, applied.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; Hanna v Flinders University [2024] SASCA 127; Harradine v…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanna v Flinders University 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: [2025] SASC 6
Decision Date: 29 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Amelie Hanna, filed an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court of South Australia, challenging the refusal by Magistrate Jackson to recuse herself from the proceedings in the matter of Hanna v Flinders University. The appellant's primary contention was that the Magistrate should have recused herself due to perceived bias and the complexity of the case requiring expertise in the education sector. Flinders University, the respondent, maintained that there was no basis for the Magistrate to recuse herself.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the appeal was competent and, if so, whether leave should be granted. The court had to determine if Hanna had demonstrated a reasonable prospect of establishing error in the Magistrate's reasons for declining to recuse herself, if the Magistrate's conduct during the interlocutory stages gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and whether the Magistrate had an arguable case for disqualification due to her relationship with the respondent's solicitors.

The court found that the appeal was not competent because leave was not sought from the Magistrate’s decision not to recuse herself. Even if the appeal was considered competent, the court refused to grant leave because Hanna did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of establishing error in the Magistrate's reasons. The court also found that the Magistrate's conduct during the interlocutory stages did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, nor did Hanna demonstrate an arguable case that the Magistrate should have disqualified herself due to her relationship with the respondent's solicitors. The court concluded that Hanna had not shown the Magistrate had dealings with the respondent's solicitors with respect to the proceedings.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that Hanna pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The following summarises the disposition of this appeal.1.The appeal is not competent because leave is not amenable from the Magistrate’s decision not to recuse herself.2.If the appeal is competent, leave is refused because the appellant did not demonstrate that:a.she had a reasonable prospect of establishing error in the Magistrate’s reasons for declining to recuse herself;b.the Magistrate’s conduct during the interlocutory stages of the action and in particular on 5 April 2024 gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, or supported a conclusion of actual bias; orc.she had an arguable case that the Magistrate should have disqualified herself in respect of the Magistrate’s relationship with the respondent’s solicitors, or did not demonstrate that the Magistrate had dealings with the respondent’s solicitors with respect to the proceedings. Background The appellant filed a claim (the Claim) in the Magistrates Court on 2 November 2021 (CIV-21-012199). The Claim sought payment from Flinders University in the sum of $95,336 and a variety of other orders. It is not easy to succinctly describe the basis of the Claim because it is not expressed by reference to the causes of action or remedies that the Court immediately recognises. However, for the purposes of this appeal, which concerns the very narrow issue of a decision on a recusal application, it is sufficient to adopt (but only for this purpose) the respondent’s characterisation of the Claim as being for the payment to the appellant of an amount equivalent to a scholarship for three past years, and a declaration that the appellant has an entitlement to the scholarship until such time as the appellant completes her doctorate of philosophy.[1] The University denies that it is liable to make the payment or to provide such a commitment.[1] The appellant had, at the time of the appeal, an active application to amend her claim in ways that are not relevant to the disposition of this appeal. The appellant is self-represented but assisted by her brother. An interpreter has been made available to the appellant for the proceedings at her request but was minimally relied upon by the appellant. The Claim has been the subject of interlocutory applications in the Magistrates Court, leading to various procedural orders being made by a Magistrate. In one such application,[2] the appellant sought discovery from the respondent, but by order made on 16 February 2024 the appellant was not granted access to all of the documents that she requested. The appellant appealed that decision, and on 5 June 2024, Kourakis CJ granted the appellant permission to appeal in respect of only one of the several categories of documents that had been declined by the Magistrate and ordered that the appellant pay 60% of the respondent’s costs.[3] The appellant subsequently appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed.[4][2] CIV-21-012199 FDN 42.[3] CIV-24 002046 (Kourakis CJ).[4] Hanna v Flinders University [2024] SASCA 127 (Livesey P and Bleby JA).The impugned decision

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Claim has been the subject of interlocutory applications in the Magistrates Court, leading to various procedural orders being made by a Magistrate. In one such application,[2] the appellant sought discovery from the respondent, but by order made on 16 February 2024 the appellant was not granted access to all of the documents that she requested. The appellant appealed that decision, and on 5 June 2024, Kourakis CJ granted the appellant permission to appeal in respect of only one of the several categories of documents that had been declined by the Magistrate and ordered that the appellant pay 60% of the respondent’s costs.[3] The appellant subsequently appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed.[4][2] CIV-21-012199 FDN 42.[3] CIV-24 002046 (Kourakis CJ).[4] Hanna v Flinders University [2024] SASCA 127 (Livesey P and Bleby JA).The impugned decision In the meantime, the Claim has proceeded along its pre-hearing path. Central to these proceedings, on 22 April 2024, the Magistrate refused an application by the appellant (‘the Recusal Application’) dated 12 March 2024, which sought orders as follows:-The Court replace Magistrate Jackson from handling the proceeding; and-The Court assign another judicial officer to handle this civil proceeding on the ground that it was so complex and technical that it required a judge with expertise in the education sector.[5][5] FDN 50. The grounds asserted in the Recusal Application were:1.That the appellant was in the process of appealing an earlier decision of the Magistrate in the proceedings;2.Bias and failure to apply legal principles [on the part of the Magistrate];3.Prejudice, being the denial of the appellant’s discovery requests;4.Abuse of the Magistrate’s discretion regarding discovery;5.Overly restrictive approach to discovery;6.Failure to adequately justify the discovery decisions;7.Procedural deficiencies in handling the discovery applications; and8.Misunderstanding and misinterpretation on the part of the Magistrate in relation to the discovery applications. The Recusal Application was accompanied by an affidavit.[6] That document repeated the grounds on which the application was based and annexed the Notice of Appeal challenging the Magistrate’s orders in relation to discovery.[6] FDN 52. The Recusal Application was made within the proceedings, though the fact that the appellant requested that another Magistrate be assigned to the proceedings is consistent with the appellant believing that some other person was making the decision. The parties filed written submissions on the Recusal Application and it was set down for argument.[7][7] FDN 58 (respondent); FDN 61 (appellant). The Magistrate approached the Recusal Application as if it should be understood as an application for the Magistrate to recuse herself. The Magistrate declined to do so, awarded costs against the appellant, and gave ex tempore reasons dated 22 April 2024.[8][8] Amelie Hanna v Flinders University CIV-21-012199, 22 April 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.