McDonald v Attorney-General (SA)

The applicant, McDonald, sought the disqualification of the judges of the Court of Appeal of South Australia from hearing an appeal concerning orders made under section 39 of the *Supreme Court Act 1935* (SA). The Attorney-General (SA) was the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the judges held an apprehended bias that would prevent them from impartially determining the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the judges were disqualified from hearing the appeal due to an apprehended bias. This required the court to consider whether a reasonable and informed person would apprehend that the judges might not bring an impartial mind to the issues before them, particularly in light of previous decisions or involvement in related matters.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that any right to object on the grounds of apprehended bias had been waived by the applicant. Furthermore, the court found that the apprehension of bias was unlikely to arise in this specific matter. This was because the appeal concerned the propriety of orders made under section 39 of the *Supreme Court Act 1935* (SA) in 2025, rather than a review of the correctness of a decision made by the Full Court in 2009. The court applied the principles of apprehended bias, considering the nature of the decision to be made and the applicant's conduct.

The application to disqualify the judges was dismissed. The question of costs was referred to the Court of Appeal.