RILAK & TSOCAS

In the Family Court of Australia, the mother sought the recusal of the trial judge and an injunction restraining the father's solicitors and counsel from acting in the proceedings. The father and the Independent Children's Lawyer opposed both applications. The mother's concerns arose from the fact that the trial judge's legal associate had secured a position with the firm of solicitors representing the father, although the firm had advised that the associate's employment would commence only after the final judgment was delivered. The mother submitted that this situation might have led to improper communication between the judge's chambers and the father's legal team.

The court was required to determine whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying the recusal of the trial judge and the disqualification of the father's legal representatives. Specifically, the court had to consider if the circumstances, including the impending employment of the judge's associate with the father's solicitors, could lead a fair-minded and informed observer, properly advised of the facts, to conclude that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the proceedings or that the father's legal team was compromised.

The court reasoned that the hypothetical observer, fully informed of the facts, would not reasonably apprehend a basis for recusal. The court found that the legal associate's future employment, commencing after judgment, did not create a situation where improper communication was likely or had occurred. Consequently, there was no foundation for the mother's application for recusal or for restraining the father's solicitors and counsel from acting.

Accordingly, the mother’s amended application in a case filed on 2 June 2015, seeking recusal and disqualification, was dismissed.