FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McGinn v Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 790
File number(s): NSD 536 of 2025 Judgment of: JACKMAN J Date of judgment: 3 July 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for disqualification – application dismissed Legislation: Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW) Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 1 Date of hearing: 3 July 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was a litigant-in-person
ORDERS
NSD 536 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 transcriptJACKMAN J:
In matter NSD536/2025, Ms McGinn applies for me to disqualify myself from hearing the matter. As far as I am able to understand the submissions, Ms McGinn alleges that I failed to consider an argument in cases which I have heard earlier today to the effect that a Registrar of the Federal Court does not have power to refuse to accept documents for filing on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Ms McGinn also made reference to s 5R of the Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW). Ms McGinn submitted that I am unable to bring a fresh mind to bear on the present matter in light of the decisions which I have already made today. I emphasised that I am open to persuasion by Ms McGinn in relation to her application in matter NSD536/2025 and I reject her application for my disqualification.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman. Associate:
Dated: 11 July 2025
- AGLC
- McGinn v Federal Court of Australia [2025] FCA 790
- Case
- [2025] FCA 790
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether there were grounds to disqualify the judge as alleged by McGinn. This required a review of the circumstances under which the application was made, and an assessment of whether the judge's impartiality could be reasonably questioned by a fair-minded lay observer. The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the relevant provisions in the law concerning judicial disqualification and the standard of proof required to establish bias.
The court found that McGinn failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of bias. It was determined that the application did not meet the threshold required to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court held that the fair-minded lay observer, having considered the facts, would not conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased. Consequently, the application for disqualification was dismissed.
The final order of the court was that the application for disqualification be dismissed. The court emphasised that the standard for disqualification is high, and the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate bias to a satisfactory degree. The dismissal of the application reflects the court's adherence to this principle.
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.