Seaward and MacDuff (No. 4)

The Family Court of Australia heard an application by Mr Seaward seeking the disqualification of the judicial officer and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) in proceedings involving Ms MacDuff. Mr Seaward also sought permission to publish an account of the proceedings. The applications were made after the final hearing of the parties' parenting application had been reserved.

The court was required to determine whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judicial officer might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions before the court, based on an order made by the judge. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the ICL had breached his duties of impartiality and evidentiary-based submissions by referring to Mr Seaward's demeanour during a previous hearing.

Regarding the application to disqualify the judicial officer, the court applied the apprehended bias principle, as established in *Ebner v Official Trustee* and *Johnson v Johnson*. The court found that the order in question, which sought to organise anticipated issues, was permissible under sections 69ZN and 69ZQ of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and did not demonstrate a lack of impartiality. Consequently, the application for the judicial officer's disqualification was dismissed. In relation to the ICL, the court examined the ICL's comments in their context, noting that while demeanour can be a factor, it must be considered cautiously and supported by evidence. The court found that the ICL's remarks, made "on balance," were a fair summary of balanced submissions and did not demonstrate impermissible bias or a lack of impartiality, thus dismissing the application for the ICL's removal.

The court dismissed most of Mr Seaward's applications in a series of orders. However, the applicant was granted leave to reopen his Application for Final Orders concerning specific paragraphs of his affidavit and annexures. The court set out a timetable for the filing of further affidavits and written submissions, with a further hearing listed for 26 October 2012, or finalisation by written submissions if no further evidence was filed. The costs of the respondent and ICL for the day were reserved. The publication of the judgment under the pseudonym Seaward & MacDuff (No. 4) was approved pursuant to section 121(9)(g) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).