Legal Research
Cases
Priestley v Godwin

Priestley v Godwin

Case [2008] FCA 1179 16 July 2008

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for recusal and adjournment – applications refused
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 21(1)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 40, 79
Federal Court Rules O 20 r 5
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 cited
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 applied
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 cited
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 cited
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 cited
Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 835 cited
Rossetto v Meriton Apartments Proprietary Limited [2006] FCA 1290 cited
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 considered
MICHAEL PRIESTLEY v ANNWYN GODWIN PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER
ACD 1 OF 2008
MICHAEL PRIESTLEY v THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
ACD 2 OF 2008
BENNETT J
16 JULY 2008
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 1 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY
Applicant

AND:

ANNWYN GODWIN
PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 2 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY
Applicant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
First Respondent

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 JULY 2008

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application for adjournment is refused.
2.The applicant’s first, second and third applications for recusal are refused.
3.The decision on the fourth application for recusal is reserved.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 1 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY
Applicant

AND:

ANNWYN GODWIN
PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 2 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY
Applicant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
First Respondent

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE:

16 JULY 2008

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

These two proceedings were commenced in January 2008. In each proceeding Mr Priestley is seeking statements of reasons for, and the disclosure of evidence leading to, decisions of the respondents to make no further enquiry into certain allegations made by Mr Priestley. Those allegations concerned:
·a decision of the respondent in ACD 1/2008 to make no further inquiry into alleged breaches of the Parliamentary Service Code of Conduct by various parties; and
·a decision of the respondent in ACD 2/2008 not to refer Mr Priestley’s allegations of corrupt conduct by the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Priestley v Godwin

Details

AGLC: Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179
Case: [2008] FCA 1179
Decision Date: 16 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Priestley v Godwin, the parties involved were Mr Priestley, the applicant, and Mr Godwin, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was focused on a constitutional issue that Mr Priestley wished to raise, as well as several applications made by him to the court. These applications included requests for an adjournment of the hearing and for the judge to recuse themselves from the case. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, with the presiding judge delivering the decision.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the applications made by Mr Priestley. These applications included whether the hearing should be adjourned, whether the judge should recuse themselves from the case, and if so, on what grounds. Furthermore, Mr Priestley raised the issue of the applicability of the Human Rights Act to the court's decision-making process. The court was tasked with evaluating these applications and determining their validity in the context of the case.

In delivering the decision, the judge first addressed Mr Priestley's application for an adjournment, which was refused. The judge then considered each of the recusal applications made by Mr Priestley, ruling that the first, second, and third applications were unfounded. However, the judge reserved decision on the fourth application for recusal, indicating that further consideration was required. Additionally, the judge directed the parties to submit any further written submissions on the application of the Human Rights Act within seven days. The hearing of the constitutional issue proceeded as scheduled.

The orders made by the court reflected the decisions reached during the hearing. The applicant's application for an adjournment was refused, and his first, second, and third applications for recusal were also dismissed. However, the decision on the fourth application for recusal was reserved, leaving it open for further consideration. The judge's decision allowed the hearing of the constitutional issue to proceed, while also directing the parties to provide any additional written submissions on the application of the Human Rights Act within the specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application for adjournment is refused.

2. The applicant’s first, second and third applications for recusal are refused.

3. The decision on the fourth application for recusal is reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

BENNETT J

I will consider this aspect of Mr Priestley’s submissions further and will reserve judgment on this aspect.CONCLUSION I see no basis upon which the hearing listed for today should be adjourned. I also see no basis upon which to recuse myself from proceeding to hear the constitutional issue. I will, however, consider further Mr Priestley’s submissions regarding the application of the Human Rights Act to this Court. I direct the parties to provide any further written submissions they wish to make on this point within seven days. The hearing of the constitutional issue will proceed today.ORDERS It follows that the orders I will make are that:1.The applicant’s application for adjournment is refused.2.The applicant’s first, second and third applications for recusal are refused.3.The decision on the fourth application for recusal is reserved.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BENNETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179

Most Recent Citation

Priestley v Godwin (No 2) [2008] FCA 1453

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Priestley v Godwin (No 5)
[2009] FCA 594 Para 8

…ns, unsupported by evidence, of what he termed bias and jurisdictional error. I dealt with Mr Priestley’s allegations of bias in Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179. Those allegations were also the subject of an application to the High Court and were described by French CJ as ‘ not tenable ’ ( Priestley v Godwin (P…
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham
[2009] FCA 303 Para 5

…sion v Forestview Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1628; Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd v Elderslie Finance Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 1045; Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179; Vescio v Hon Kristina Keneally [2008] FCA 589; Westpac Banking Corporation v Tsatsoulis [2003] FCA 406. By way of contrast, an adjournment was grant…
Priestley v Godwin
[2008] HCA 59 Para 23

…the Federal Court Rules. On 25 September 2008 her Honour gave judgment dismissing the fourth disqualification application[4]. [2] Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179. [3](2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63. [4] Priestley v Godwin (No 2) [2008] FCA 1453.…
Priestley v Godwin (No 2)
[2008] FCA 1453 Para 3

…As set out in Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 1179, Mr Priestley made a number of applications for me to disqualify myself from determining the constitutional challenge. I refused to disqualify myself on three of the grounds advanced by Mr Priestley. I reserved my decision in respect of a fourth ground based on the…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

Priestley v Godwin
[2008] FCA 835 Para 2

…(‘the constitutional issue’). Accordingly, Gyles J did not proceed with the hearing but ordered that s 78B notices be served ( Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 835 (‘ Priestley ’) at [3]).…
Rossetto v Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd
[2006] FCA 1290 Para 17

…1A. He submits that this is a further ground for a reasonable apprehension of bias. He says that in Rossetto v Meriton Apartments Proprietary Limited [2006] FCA 1290 I made comments to the effect that s 31A is a valid law of the Commonwealth and that this shows that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on my…
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[2000] HCA 63 Para 20

…Mr Priestley then submits that my decision to refuse his first application for recusal was incorrect, as failing to apply the common law test in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337. He submits that I made an error of law.…
Johnson v Johnson
[2000] HCA 48 Para 21

…not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question [he or she] is required to decide” ’ (citing Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 at [11] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). Mr Priestley says that it is necessary for me first to test his application for my recusal in…
Webb v the Queen
[1994] HCA 30 Para 9

…uld recuse myself from hearing this matter due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Mr Priestley points to Deane J’s statement in Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 at 74 where his Honour noted that one of the categories of disqualification by reason of appearance of bias was ‘ disqualification by interest… where s…
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal
[1990] HCA 31 Para 14

…bject matter of the litigation to sit on a case where no judge without such an interest is available to sit ( Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 per Mason CJ and Brennan J at 88).…
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)
[1964] HCA 69 Para 18

…l Steel’, referring to Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 and General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125. In Rossetto at [46] I concluded that, by either test, I was satisfied that the cause of action in that case could not succeed and was liable to be struc…
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners
[1949] HCA 1 Para 18

…vides ‘ a more flexible and arguably less stringent test than that of Dey and General Steel’, referring to Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 and General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125. In Rossetto at [46] I concluded that, by either test, I was satisf…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
40, 79 3 mentions (from Para 11)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
31A 2 mentions (from Para 3)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
21(1) 2 mentions (from Para 28)

BETWEEN:	MICHAEL PRIESTLEY Applicant
AND:	ANNWYN GODWIN PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER Respondent

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JULY 2008
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE:	16 JULY 2008
PLACE:	CANBERRA