Snow v Judicial Registrar Birchall - [2025] FCA 885

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Snow v Judicial Registrar Birchall [2025] FCA 885

File number(s): SAD 137 of 2025

Judgment of: MCDONALD J

Date of judgment: 1 August 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – reasonable apprehension of bias – application for judicial review of decision of registrar to refuse to accept documents for filing – where applicant had sought leave to appeal orders preventing him from relying on proposed ground of appeal to Full Court – where proposed ground of appeal sought to criticise conduct of organisation – where judge had been member of management committee of organisation – whether fair‑minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that judge might not bring an impartial mind to hearing of proceeding

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26

Cases cited:
Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289; [2021] HCA 29

Snow v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2024] FCA 608

Division: General Division

Registry: South Australia

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 16

Date of hearing: 1 August 2025

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

SAD 137 of 2025

BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER ASLIN SNOW

Applicant

AND:
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR SYDNEY BIRCHALL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCDONALD J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings be reallocated to another judge of the Court as soon as practicable.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCDONALD J:
Introduction

The applicant, Christopher Snow, seeks judicial review of a decision of a registrar of the Court to refuse to accept for filing two documents which Mr Snow lodged for filing on 10 June 2025. The first document is an application for leave to appeal against orders made by O’Callaghan J on 27 May 2025. The second document is an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal.
The registrar refused to accept the two documents for filing pursuant to r 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the ground that he was satisfied that each document was an abuse of process of the Court. He reached that state of satisfaction on the basis of his conclusion that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for leave to appeal that Mr Snow had attempted to file.
The judicial review proceedings were allocated to my docket. After being notified that I was the docket judge, and before the first case management hearing, Mr Snow, by email to my chambers, raised a concern that a reasonable apprehension of bias arose on account of my previous membership of the committee of management of JusticeNet SA, a not-for-profit organisation that aims to facilitate access to justice, including by assisting vulnerable and financially disadvantaged people to obtain pro bono legal representation. Mr Snow asked for the issue of apprehended bias to be addressed at the first case management…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Snow v Judicial Registrar Birchall and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FCA 885
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Snow v Judicial Registrar Birchall, the dispute centred around the refusal of a judicial registrar to accept documents for filing. The applicant sought leave to appeal orders that prevented him from relying on a proposed ground of appeal to the Full Court. The crux of the proposed ground of appeal was a criticism of the conduct of an organisation, of which the judge had been a member of the management committee at the time when the alleged acts or omissions by the organisation occurred. The applicant sought judicial review of the registrar's decision to refuse to accept the documents.

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 mind to the hearing of the judicial review proceedings, given the judge's prior involvement with the management committee of the organisation in question. The applicant argued that the judge's past association with the organisation created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In considering the matter, the judge acknowledged that they were not knowingly involved in any matter concerning Mr Snow or the proceedings. However, the judge concluded that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might decide Mr Snow's application otherwise than on its legal merits. This apprehension was due to the judge's prior involvement with the management committee of JusticeNet SA during the time when the alleged acts or omissions occurred. Consequently, the judge was satisfied that a reasonable apprehension of bias was established, leading to the decision to recuse themselves from further hearing of the judicial review proceedings.

The court ordered that the proceedings be reallocated to another judge of the Court as soon as practicable, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings be reallocated to another judge of the Court as soon as practicable.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Even though I was not knowingly involved in any matter concerning Mr Snow or the proceedings in which he was involved, I consider that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that a judge who had been involved in the management of JusticeNet SA at the time when the acts or omissions about which Mr Snow seeks to complain are alleged to have occurred might decide Mr Snow’s application otherwise than on its legal merits. Accordingly, I am satisfied that a reasonable apprehension of bias is established.Conclusion For these reasons, I have determined that I should recuse myself from further hearing of the judicial review proceedings. The proceedings will be reallocated to a different judge of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SAD 137 of 2025
Judgment of:	MCDONALD J
Date of judgment:	1 August 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – reasonable apprehension of bias – application for judicial review of decision of registrar to refuse to accept documents for filing – where applicant had sought leave to appeal orders preventing him from relying on proposed ground of appeal to Full Court – where proposed ground of appeal sought to criticise conduct of organisation – where judge had been member of management committee of organisation – whether fair‑minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that judge might not bring an impartial mind to hearing of proceeding
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.26
Cases cited:	Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289; [2021] HCA 29 Snow v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2024] FCA 608
Division:	General Division
Registry:	South Australia
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	16
Date of hearing:	1 August 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent appeared in person

ORDER MADE BY:	MCDONALD J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2025