FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| STRAHAN & STRAHAN (DISQUALIFICATION) | [2009] FamCAFC 204 |
| FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COURTS AND JUDGES – DISQUALIFICATION – Whether the judge should have disqualified himself because of apprehended bias – Where the wife had been employed by the judge in 1981 when he was a practising solicitor – Where that employment was terminated for unsatisfactory performance – Where it was accepted that the judge had no memory of the wife’s former employment – Where the wife’s evidence as to her former employment was unchallenged – Where the wife intended to introduce evidence during property settlement proceedings that she assisted the husband in developing a successful business – Consideration of the test in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy – Appeal allowed FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COURTS AND JUDGES – DISQUALIFICATION AND DISCRETION – Whether a decision to disqualify is a matter of discretion – Whether the wife must show an error of the kind found in House v The King – Where the judge must apply the governing principles to the facts without any latitude of individual choice – Held such decisions are not discretionary FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COURTS AND JUDGES – DISQUALIFICATION AND WAIVER – Whether the wife had waived her right to seek the disqualification of the judge – Where considerable time passed between when the wife first expressed concerns and when she made her application – Where the wife’s uncontested evidence was that she was unaware of her rights regarding this issue – Where the wife provided an adequate explanation for the delay – Such delay not fatal to the wife’s appeal FAMILY LAW - COSTS – Where the appeal has been successful – Where an order for cost certificates would be inappropriate considering the parties’ wealth, the amount they have spent on litigation and the extent to which public resources have been made available to them in providing a forum for their dispute – No order as to costs between the husband and the wife – Where the husband and the wife bear equally the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer on an increased scale |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) High Court Rules 2004 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Strahan |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Strahan |
| INDEPENDENT… |
Continue reading Strahan & Strahan (Disqualification)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Strahan & Strahan (Disqualification) [2009] FamCAFC 204
- Case
- [2009] FamCAFC 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the test for disqualification set out in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, concluding that decisions regarding disqualification are not discretionary but require the judge to apply governing principles to the facts without any latitude of individual choice. The court found that the wife had not waived her right to seek disqualification, despite the considerable time that passed between when she first expressed concerns and when she made her application. The wife provided an adequate explanation for the delay, and the court accepted that she was unaware of her rights regarding this issue. The court found that the wife had established a real likelihood of bias on the part of Justice Strickland, and thus the appeal was allowed, and the matter was to be listed before a different judge.
The court also considered the issue of costs, noting that the appeal had been successful, and an order for cost certificates would be inappropriate considering the parties' wealth, the amount they had spent on litigation, and the extent to which public resources had been made available to them in providing a forum for their dispute. The court made no order as to costs between the husband and the wife but ordered that they bear equally the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer, such costs to be calculated pursuant to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia scale plus 25 per cent.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be allowed.
2.
The hearing of all matters in these proceedings be listed before a judge other than the Honourable Justice Strickland.
3.
There is no order as to costs of the appeal in the case of the husband and the wife.
4.
The husband and the wife meet equally the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, such costs to be calculated pursuant to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia scale plus 25 per cent.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.