Parsons and Chou (No 3)

This matter concerned an application for recusal brought by the father against Hannam J in proceedings filed on 12 January 2016. The father contended that the judge had demonstrated bias, thereby creating an apprehension that the court could not retain an open mind when determining the ongoing interim and final parenting applications.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judge’s previous findings and remarks, particularly those made in relation to the father's conduct and the evidence presented, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This required the court to consider whether a fair-minded lay observer, informed of all the circumstances, would apprehend that the judge might not decide the case solely on its merits. The court also had to determine if there was a sufficient logical connection between the alleged instances of bias and the matters still to be determined by the judge.

Hannam J reasoned that many of the matters complained of were neutral observations about the evidence or the objective quality of the evidence, rather than concluded findings of untruthfulness or general criticism of the father. The judge noted that remarks about the medical records, the timing of a recording, and concerns about a child's disclosure were not intended to suggest dishonesty. The use of the word "withholding" was considered a neutral description of the father's actions in not making the children available to the mother as ordered. The judge found that the contention of bias based on the interim orders themselves was more akin to an appeal against those orders. Furthermore, the court considered the nexus between the alleged bias and the remaining proceedings, concluding that while there was a strong connection to the completion of the interim application, the connection to the final hearing was less direct, especially given the prospect of further evidence and expert reports.

The application in the case filed 12 January 2016 was dismissed.