Thompson v Lane

[2025] FCA 297

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Thompson v Lane [2025] FCA 297  

Appeal from:

Thompson v Lane [2024] FCA 1234

File number(s):

QUD 709 of 2024

Judgment of:

MEAGHER J

Date of judgment:

17 February 2025

Date of publication of reasons:

31 March 2025

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Leave to appeal – Recusal – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that judge might not bring an impartial mind to the hearing of the proceeding

Cases cited:

Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Greensill Bank AG v Insurance Australia Limited [2025] FCA 95

QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 419

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Queensland

National Practice Area:

Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:

General and Personal Insolvency

Number of paragraphs:

23

Date of hearing:

17 February 2025

Counsel for the Applicant:

Applicant appeared in-person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr RE O’Sullivan

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Shand Taylor Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 709 of 2024

BETWEEN:

EMMA THOMPSON

Applicant

AND:

MORGAN LANE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	MEAGHER J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The following proceedings be referred to the National Operations Registrar for the purposes of reallocation to another judge of the Court:

a. Emma Narelle Cathryn Thompson v Morgan Lane (QUD 709 of 2024)

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MEAGHER J

1. This matter concerns an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court. The applicant is a litigant in person. The matter was allocated to my docket and set down for a first case management hearing on 17 February 2025. At that case management hearing, I recused myself from hearing the application. These are my reasons for so doing.

2. The draft notice of appeal filed with the application for leave to appeal is unclear and discursive, however it is possible to glean that it inter alia impugns a costs order. According to the applicant, the costs order was invalidly made.

3. The draft notice of appeal alleges that a law firm, the claimed beneficiary of a costs order, had:

   … failed to comply with the requisite requirements of relevant legislation including;

   Legal Professional Act 2007, including s.308 and s.315, s.340 and s.341; and

   Legal Profession Regulation 2017, including s.69; and

   Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules 2012, including Rules 3, 5 and 19.

4. I infer by that, the applicant who is a litigant in person, meant the following:

   ·Legal Profession Act2007 (Qld), ss 308, 315, 340, 341;

   ·Legal Profession Regulation 2017 (Qld), s 69; and

   ·Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2012, rr 3, 5 and 19.

5. Of particular relevance, the Draft Notice of Appeal included the following:

   …

   Pertaining to the first of the three (3) identified issues, one serious question to be tried is that there is no…