Pamamull v Uniting (NSW/Act)

[2020] FCCA 3032

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAMAMULL v UNITING (NSW/ACT) [2020] FCCA 3032

Catchwords:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Recusal.

Cases cited:

Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488

Applicant: JACINTA PAMAMULL

Respondent: UNITING (NSW/ACT)

File Number: SYG 2038 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Cameron

Hearing date: 30 October 2020

Date of Last Submission: 30 October 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 30 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms A. Willits (Hilliard and Berry)

ORDERS

1. The request for recusal be refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2038 of 2020

JACINTA PAMAMULL

Applicant

And

UNITING (NSW/ACT)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Ms Pamamull, has invited me to disqualify myself from further involvement in this proceeding.  She is concerned that I might not bring an unprejudiced mind to the hearing of this matter because my family and I have had interaction with the Uniting Church in the past.  The relevant test is whether a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend that I might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to this matter: Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488.

2. As I said on the last occasion I went to a Uniting Church school but I did leave school in 1976 and I have not been in regular contact with the school as a former student, although I will concede my son went to the same school.  But that does not mean that I have an association with the church and I am not a member of the Uniting Church.  I am a member of a different church.  As to my family, it is not my nuclear family who are members of the Uniting Church, but more distant members of my family, and their connection with the church, or membership of the Uniting Church, has nothing to do with me and I do not attend church with them. 

3. My interactions with the Uniting Church have been incidental to my life and I do not think in the circumstances a reasonable person would think that those incidental connections would cause me to bring something other than an unprejudiced mind to this case. Certainly I believe I have an open mind in this case and no predisposition to either party.

4. In reaching these conclusions, I should also point out that a judge has a duty to hear the cases which are allocated to him or her.  A judge should be hesitant to step aside from a case when objections are made unless there is a proper basis for them.  To do otherwise would lead, potentially, to judge shopping.  I am not suggesting that that is what Ms Pamamull is trying to do but if judges were too easily to accede to requests to disqualify themselves then that would be a risk.

5. Although I believe that I have a completely open mind in this case, if Ms Pamamull feels that there is the relevant risk that I do not, then she is free to appeal this decision to the Federal Court.  I have gone to the trouble of listing the matter today and giving Ms Pamamull these reasons so that she may appeal if she continues to be concerned. 

6. I decline the invitation that I disqualify myself from hearing this matter.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Cameron

Associate: 

Date: 9 November 2020