Ivanovic v Sweeney

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Ivanovic, had brought an action for damages for personal injuries against his employer, Sweeney. The employer denied the existence of the employment relationship, negligence, and injury, but pleaded contributory negligence. During the hearing before a senior master, counsel for the applicant requested the master disqualify himself due to his perceived attitude and remarks, which the master declined to do without providing reasons.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the senior master erred in refusing to disqualify himself from hearing the case. This involved an examination of the well-established principle that a judicial officer should not sit to hear a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that they might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions, considering the perspective of the parties and the public. The applicant argued that the Full Court, in its previous consideration of the matter, had not correctly applied this principle.

The applicant contended that while the principle of impartiality was not in dispute, the Full Court had failed to properly apply the established test for apprehended bias. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Full Court had not adequately considered the matter from the perspective of what a party or the public might reasonably perceive, as had been done in previous High Court decisions such as *Vakuata v Kelly*. The applicant submitted that the Full Court's judgments appeared to view the complaint of bias from a judicial perspective rather than from the viewpoint of a litigant or the public.