FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hillier v Martin (No 15) [2022] FCA 996
File number: SAD 113 of 2020 Judgment of: CHARLESWORTH J Date of judgment: 25 July 2022 Date of publication of reasons 25 August 2022 Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Hillier v Martin [2021] FCA 269
Hillier v Martin (No 2) [2021] FCA 509
Hillier v Martin (No 3) [2021] FCA 709
Hillier v Martin (No 4) [2021] FCA 710
Hillier v Martin (No 5) [2021] FCA 949
Hillier v Martin (No 6) [2021] FCA 1009
Hillier v Martin (No 7) [2021] FCA 1221
Hillier v Martin (No 8) [2021] FCA 1272
Hillier v Martin (No 9) [2021] FCA 1319
Hillier v Martin (No 11) [2022] FCA 407
Division: General Division Registry: South Australia National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 88 Date of hearing: 25 July 2022 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Whitington QC with Mr G Sykes Bidstrup and Ms H Doyle Solicitor for the Applicant: Sykes Bidstrup Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr MB Manetta Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Boylan Lawyers Interested Party: Mr T Martin appeared as an interested person with leave of the Court ORDERS
SAD 113 of 2020 BETWEEN: JAMES HILLIER
Applicant
AND: VICTORIA MARTIN
First Respondent
NORDBURGER OPERATIONS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
ERIK VARI PTY LTD
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHARLESWORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JULY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The oral application for an adjournment made by the respondents and the non-party Mr Thomas Martin is dismissed.
2.The oral application of the non-party Mr Thomas Martin for an order that the presiding judge be disqualified is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHARLESWORTH J
On 17 August 2022 the Court made orders on an interlocutory application filed on 23 June 2022 by the applicant, Mr James Hillier. The orders followed a hearing conducted on 25 and 26 July 2022. During the course of the hearing the Court dismissed an application for an adjournment jointly made by the respondents and a non-party, Mr Thomas Martin. Oral reasons for dismissing the adjournment application were given on the same day. The parties have since been provided with an unaltered copy of the transcript of the oral reasons in the form provided to the Court by Auscript.
The Court also heard and dismissed an oral application made by Mr Martin in his personal capacity for an order that I be disqualified on the grounds of apprehended bias. Like the adjournment application, oral reasons for dismissing the disqualification application were delivered orally and the parties have since been provided an unaltered copy of the transcript of…
Continue reading Hillier v Martin (No 15)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hillier v Martin (No 15) [2022] FCA 996
- Case
- [2022] FCA 996
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether there were grounds to disqualify the presiding judge and whether there was sufficient justification to grant an adjournment of the hearing. The court had to carefully consider the principles of judicial impartiality and the necessity of adjournments in the context of the ongoing litigation. The applicant argued that there were compelling reasons for the judge's disqualification and for an extension of time to prepare for the hearing. The respondent and the non-party, Mr Thomas Martin, opposed these applications on the grounds that they were without merit and would unduly delay the proceedings.
In its decision, the court thoroughly examined the applicant's grounds for disqualification and the request for an adjournment. The court found that the reasons provided by the applicant were insufficient to warrant the disqualification of the presiding judge. The court also concluded that the application for an adjournment was not supported by the evidence presented and would not serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the court dismissed both the application for disqualification and the application for an adjournment. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that the proceedings were conducted in a timely and efficient manner.
The final orders of the court were that the oral application for an adjournment made by the respondents and the non-party Mr Thomas Martin was dismissed. Additionally, the oral application of the non-party Mr Thomas Martin for an order that the presiding judge be disqualified was also dismissed. These orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The oral application for an adjournment made by the respondents and the non-party Mr Thomas Martin is dismissed.
2. The oral application of the non-party Mr Thomas Martin for an order that the presiding judge be disqualified 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.