SELLERS & BURNS

In this matter before Foster J, the husband sought the disqualification of the judicial officer on the grounds of apprehended bias. The dispute concerned an application made by the husband, the details of which are not specified in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the questions before them. This required the court to consider the established principles regarding apprehended bias, particularly in the context of pre-judgment.

Foster J applied the test for apprehended bias as articulated in *Johnson v Johnson* and *Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy*. The court noted that the test is objective and based on public confidence in the judiciary, requiring consideration of whether a reasonable observer might apprehend bias. The judge also acknowledged that judges are expected to engage with cases, form tentative views, and participate in judicial dialogue, and that such engagement does not, in itself, indicate pre-judgment. The court further considered the principle that judges have a duty to exercise their jurisdiction unless there is a substantial ground for disqualification, and that litigants cannot choose their judges.

The husband's application for disqualification was dismissed. The court also made orders regarding any subsequent applications for costs, requiring written submissions to be filed and served within specified timeframes.