Strahan and Strahan

In the matter of *Strahan and Strahan*, the wife sought the disqualification of the presiding judge from hearing her application for disqualification, alleging apprehended bias. The husband opposed this application.

The court was required to determine three issues: first, whether apprehended bias arose from comments made by the judge during earlier hearings concerning the wife's application for disqualification; second, whether the wife's application for disqualification was valid, given her past employment in 1981 and the circumstances surrounding its termination; and third, whether the wife had waived her right to bring the disqualification application.

The judge considered the wife's submission that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend bias due to comments made during hearings on 19 January, 20 January, 23 January, and 3 February 2009. The wife relied on a comment made on 19 January 2009, where the judge stated, "Clearly there's nothing in this per se." The judge noted that this comment, when viewed in context with the preceding discussion about the wife's proposed application and the need for further evidence, did not demonstrate a prejudgment of the issues. The judge also referred to Mason J's statement in *Re JRL; Ex parte CJL* that an apprehension of bias must be "firmly established" and that disqualification requires showing a reasonable apprehension of bias by reason of prejudgment, not merely that the judge might decide adversely to a party.

The application by the wife for the judge's disqualification, and the husband's response, were dismissed and removed from the active pending cases list.