PD v President, Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2)

PD, the applicant, applied to disqualify Justice Rangiah from hearing an appeal against a decision made by the Australian Human Rights Commission. The application was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that Justice Rangiah had an apprehended bias due to his involvement in previous cases concerning PD. The central issue before the court was whether the judge's prior involvement in related cases created an apprehension of bias, warranting his disqualification from the current appeal. The court examined the legal principles governing judicial disqualification and the criteria for establishing apprehended bias.

In considering the application, the court applied the principles established in the case of Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. It found that for a judge to be disqualified, there must be a real likelihood of bias on the basis of the material before the court. The court assessed the circumstances of the prior cases, the nature of Justice Rangiah's involvement, and whether there was any connection between the previous decisions and the current appeal. The court concluded that there was no real likelihood of bias, as the prior cases were factually distinct and the judge's involvement was limited to formal rulings without any express opinion on the merits. Consequently, the apprehension of bias was not substantiated.

As a result of this reasoning, the court dismissed the application for disqualification. The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the interlocutory application to the Australian Human Rights Commission. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial disqualification is reserved for cases where there is a significant risk of bias, and the threshold is high. The orders reflect the court's findings and are in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in interlocutory applications.