Polsen v Harrison (No 5)

The matter of Polsen v Harrison (No 5) involved a plaintiff who sought the recusal of the trial judge in medical negligence proceedings, arguing that the judge was biased. The plaintiff's basis for this application was that the judge's tipstaff had attended a single directions hearing on behalf of the defendant two years prior. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the application for the judge to disqualify himself was justified.

The primary legal issue was whether the judge's prior connection with the defendant through their tipstaff was sufficient to establish an apprehension of bias. The court needed to assess whether this connection was so substantial that it could lead a reasonable observer to question the judge's impartiality. The court also considered the principles governing judicial recusal and the standards of proof required to establish bias.

The High Court found that the connection between the judge's tipstaff and the defendant was not sufficient to raise an apprehension of bias. The court held that a single directions hearing two years earlier did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a fair-minded lay observer. The court further emphasised that the test for bias is whether a fair-minded layperson might reasonably think the justice might be biased, and in this case, the connection was too tenuous to meet this threshold. Consequently, the application for the judge's recusal was refused.