Re Walsh; Ex parte Sokolovic

This matter concerned an application for an order nisi for a writ of prohibition directed to His Honour Mr Justice Walsh of the Family Court of Australia. The application was brought by Milorad Sokolovic, with the child in the proceedings appearing by counsel, and the wife appearing in person. The core of the dispute revolved around a refusal by Mr Justice Walsh to disqualify himself from hearing proceedings concerning the child.

The High Court was required to determine whether it should entertain the application for prohibition at that stage, given the existence of a statutory right of appeal under s 94(1AA) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning decisions not to disqualify a judge. The applicant sought to justify the High Court's involvement by referencing a prior discussion between counsel and Mr Justice Walsh, where it was believed that recourse to the Full Court was not available.

The High Court indicated that it would be slow to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction where a right of appeal existed, as such a right was generally the appropriate avenue for challenging judicial decisions. The Court noted that the amendment to the *Family Law Act* in 1987, which inserted s 94(1AA), specifically addressed the ability to challenge a judge's refusal to disqualify themselves, thereby putting beyond doubt the availability of an appeal. The Court expressed doubt that any prior discussion between counsel and the judge could override this statutory right or justify the High Court's intervention at that juncture.

The Court indicated that it would not entertain the application unless persuaded of a compelling reason for its involvement. The applicant's submissions regarding the perceived unavailability of appeal and the potential for quicker resolution in the High Court were not considered sufficient to displace the established appellate pathway.