McGinn v Federal Court of Australia

Case [2025] FCA 783

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McGinn v Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 783    

File number(s): NSD 1825 of 2024
Judgment of: JACKMAN J
Date of judgment: 3 July 2025
Catchwords:  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for disqualification – application dismissed  
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 3
Date of hearing: 3 July 2025
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was a litigant-in-person

 

ORDERS

NSD 1825 of 2024
BETWEEN:

SOPHIA MCGINN

Applicant
AND:

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for disqualification be dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

JACKMAN J:

  1. After I gave reasons for judgment in matter number NSD519/2025, Ms McGinn made yet another application that I disqualify myself from hearing NSD1825/2024 on the ground of actual bias.

  2. She submitted that the reason which I gave for dismissing her application was that there was no merit in the application and submitted that the underlying reason which I gave for that conclusion related to jurisdiction rather than merit. Ms McGinn also submitted that I failed to consider her submissions in relation to Schedule 2 of the AD(JR) Act.

  3. I am unable to see how those matters could conceivably give rise to actual bias on my part, and I reject her application.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.

Associate:

Dated:       11 July 2025

Details
AGLC
McGinn v Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 783
Case
[2025] FCA 783
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McGinn v Federal Court of Australia involved an application by McGinn for the disqualification of a Federal Court Judge on the grounds of apprehended bias. The Federal Court was called upon to decide whether the application should be dismissed or if the judge should be disqualified.

The court considered whether the grounds for the application met the threshold for disqualification as outlined in the judicial conduct provisions. The primary issue was whether there was a real likelihood of bias based on the material presented by McGinn. The court examined the application to determine if the judge's impartiality could be reasonably doubted in light of the evidence provided.

In its decision, the court found that the application did not establish a real likelihood of bias. The evidence presented was considered insufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that the application did not meet the stringent criteria required for disqualification. Consequently, the application for disqualification was dismissed.

The court's order was that the application for disqualification be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the finding that the evidence did not substantiate a reasonable apprehension of bias against the judge. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and the high threshold that must be met for such applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for disqualification be 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.