Stephens & Stephens

In *Stephens & Stephens*, the husband sought the disqualification of the judge on grounds of actual or apprehended bias. The dispute concerned outstanding costs issues arising from earlier proceedings. The application was brought before the court in April 2009, some years after the original judgment in 2005 and subsequent hearings and appeals.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether the judge had demonstrated actual bias, or alternatively, whether a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the matter. Second, the court had to consider whether the husband had waived his right to object to the judge continuing to hear the matter on the grounds of bias, given the timing of the application.

Strickland J applied the principles established in *Vakauta v Kelly* and *Re JRL; Ex parte CJL*. His Honour noted that an apprehension of bias must be "firmly established" and that a party with legal representation cannot stand by until the final judgment is known and then attack it on grounds of bias if it proves unpalatable. The court found that the husband's failure to raise any allegation of bias until April 2009, after multiple hearings and appeals, constituted a waiver of his right to object. Furthermore, the court found that neither actual nor apprehended bias was established, dismissing the husband's submissions regarding the 2005 reasons for judgment, the judge's conduct, and the listing of the wife's costs application.

The application filed by the husband was dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.