Quach v Marks (No 2)

The case of Quach v Marks (No 2) involved the applicant seeking the recusal of a judge on the basis of apprehended bias. The applicant argued that the presiding judge had previously decided matters adversely to him, leading to a potential bias in the current case. The legal issues revolved around whether there was a proper basis for recusal and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court found that there was no basis for the judge's recusal, as the previous decisions did not indicate any reasonable apprehension that the judge would not approach the issues impartially. The court emphasized that a judge's prior rulings against a party do not inherently suggest bias. Furthermore, the court ruled that the claim was a "colourable" federal claim, meaning it was made for the improper purpose of fabricating federal jurisdiction. The court held that the applicant's claim did not engage federal jurisdiction and was better suited for resolution in the New South Wales court system.

Consequently, the court set aside the applicant's originating application for want of jurisdiction and granted the application for summary dismissal. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the Intervener. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to proper legal channels and highlighted the limitations of the Federal Court's jurisdiction in matters primarily concerning state tribunals.