TALWAR & MALAK

In the matter of *Talwar & Malak*, the father sought the recusal of Hannam J from further hearing a parenting dispute. The father contended that the judge's refusal to make proposed consent parenting orders, coupled with an awareness of the compromise reached by the parties, would lead a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend that the court might deviate from determining the parenting dispute on its merits. Furthermore, the father argued that the judge had prejudged the issue of risk posed by him to the children.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds for apprehended bias, requiring the judge to disqualify themself from the proceedings. This involved applying the established two-step test for disqualification applications, which considers whether there is a real possibility of bias and, if so, whether actual bias has been demonstrated.

Hannam J applied the principles governing apprehended bias, considering the father's contentions in light of the objective test. The court analysed the circumstances surrounding the refusal of the consent orders and the judge's knowledge of the parties' compromise. The judge found that the conduct did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, nor was there any evidence of actual bias.

Consequently, the father's application seeking the judge's recusal was dismissed.