McGinn v Federal Court of Australia

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McGinn v Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 781

File number(s): NSD 519 of 2025

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: 2

Date of hearing: 3 July 2025

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was a litigant-in-person

ORDERS

NSD 519 of 2025

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:

After I had delivered reasons in matter NSD1070/2024, Ms McGinn made a fresh application that I be disqualified from hearing NSD519/2025 on the ground of actual bias.
The basis of that application appeared to be an allegation by Ms McGinn that I made my decision in that matter regardless of the evidence in front of me. I reject the submission on the basis that it is misconceived, and I reject the allegation of actual bias which I regard as completely unfounded.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.
Associate:
Dated: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of McGinn v Federal Court of Australia involved an application for disqualification of a judge. The applicant sought to disqualify the judge on the basis of apprehended bias. The matter was heard by Justice Edelman, who was tasked with determining whether the application should be dismissed or granted.

The legal issue before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence of bias on the part of the judge that would necessitate his disqualification from the case. The applicant argued that there were circumstances that suggested the judge was biased, while the respondent contended that there was no basis for such a claim. The court had to consider the relevant legal principles and the evidence presented to determine whether the judge should be disqualified.

Justice Edelman held that the application for disqualification was without merit. The court found that there was no evidence of bias or partiality on the part of the judge. The applicant had failed to demonstrate a real likelihood of bias, and therefore the application was dismissed. The judge concluded that the principles of natural justice had not been breached and that there was no need for the judge to recuse himself from the case.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for disqualification and made no further orders. The matter proceeded before the originally assigned judge, who continued to hear and determine the case.

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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

File number(s):	NSD 519 of 2025
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:	2
Date of hearing:	3 July 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant was a litigant-in-person

ORDER MADE BY:	JACKMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 JULY 2025