Shee and Hale (No 2)

In *Shee and Hale (No 2)*, Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Applicant for the trial judge to recuse himself from further proceedings, save for issues of costs. The dispute arose after the trial judge had already made findings and delivered reasons concerning the existence and duration of a de facto relationship between the parties. The Applicant also sought to defer the determination of costs arising from interlocutory applications already decided.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the reasons delivered by the trial judge in relation to the de facto relationship gave rise to an actual or apprehended lack of impartiality, thereby necessitating recusal. A secondary issue concerned the timing of the determination of costs for interlocutory applications, particularly in light of the Applicant's inability to comply with filing directions due to travel restrictions.

Baumann J dismissed the application for recusal, finding that the delivered reasons did not indicate an actual or apprehended lack of impartiality and that the judge was not satisfied that a basis for recusal had been established. Regarding the costs submissions, the court granted the Applicant an extension of time to file submissions due to the impact of travel restrictions. The determination of costs arising from specific previous hearings was reserved for after the determination of a pending application under s 44(6) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, and the parties' costs of a further application were also reserved. The proceedings were subsequently listed for a case management hearing, with provision for parties to appear by telephone.