McGinn v Federal Court of Australia

[2025] FCA 792

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McGinn v Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 792    

File number(s):

NSD 577 of 2025

Judgment of:

JACKMAN J

Date of judgment:

3 July 2025

Catchwords:

 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for disqualification on grounds of actual bias – application dismissed  

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Division:

General Division

Registry:

New South Wales

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

7

Date of hearing:

3 July 2025

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant was a litigant-in-person

 

ORDERS

NSD 577 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:

1. In matter NSD577/2025, the applicant applies for my disqualification on the ground of actual bias. The applicant advances five submissions in support.

2. First, the applicant submits that my reliance on paragraph (f) in Schedule 2 to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) in matters NSD519/2025 and NSD520/2025 is inconsistent with my reasoning that the Chief Justice’s decisions are judicial rather than administrative in nature, and submits also, in any event, that the relevant decisions do not fall within paragraph (f).

3. Second, the applicant submits that my reasoning that the fact of default is not sufficient for default judgment to be ordered is false on the face of the record.

4. Third, the applicant submits that in NSD536/2025, my reasoning to the effect that a lack of jurisdiction can constitute an abuse of process is contrary to s 144 of the ‘Evidence Act’, by which I assume the applicant is referring to the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

5. Fourth, the applicant submits that my reasoning that, in the absence of a referral of matter NSD536/2025 by the Chief Justice to a Full Court, I would determine the matter myself is said to be illogical.

6. Fifth, the applicant relies upon the fact that I have already decided a number of her applications today adversely to her.

7. I cannot see how any of those matters would disqualify me from hearing matter NSD577/2025 on the ground of actual bias. I will now proceed to hear this matter with a mind open to persuasion by the applicant.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.

Associate:

Dated:       11 July 2025