McGinn v High Court of Australia

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McGinn v High Court of Australia [2025] FCA 794

File number(s): NSD 544 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 544 of 2025

BETWEEN:
SOPHIA MCGINN

Applicant

AND:
HIGH 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:

In matter NSD544/2025, the applicant, again, applies for my disqualification on the ground of actual bias. The applicant reiterates the five submissions which she made in NSD577/2025.
Further, the applicant submits that I will not bring a fresh mind to bear on this matter in light of the decision which I made earlier today in NSD1867/2024. I do not see that those matters can conceivably amount to actual bias on my part and I reject the application for my disqualification.

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 case of McGinn v High Court of Australia, the applicant sought the disqualification of a Justice of the High Court on the grounds of apprehended bias. The matter was brought before the High Court itself, which has the jurisdiction to hear such applications under the Australian Constitution. The applicant argued that the Justice had exhibited bias that would lead a reasonable observer to apprehend an unfair trial.

The central legal issue was whether the circumstances surrounding the Justice's prior involvement in related matters created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The applicant contended that comments made by the Justice in previous cases demonstrated a mindset that would prevent a fair hearing of the current matter. The Court needed to determine whether these comments amounted to bias and, if so, whether that bias was of a kind that would lead a reasonable observer to apprehend a failure of the Justice to bring an impartial mind to the determination of the application.

The Court examined the Justice's prior comments and the context in which they were made, concluding that they did not exhibit the necessary degree of bias to warrant disqualification. The Court held that the comments were made in the context of previous cases and did not reflect a settled state of mind that would affect the Justice's impartiality in the current matter. As such, the apprehension of bias was not well-founded, and the application was dismissed. The Court's decision was grounded in the principle that a fair-minded lay observer, having considered the facts, might reasonably apprehend bias, but in this case, such apprehension was not justified.

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 544 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