Thompson v Registar Ellis - [2025] FCA 296

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thompson v Registar Ellis [2025] FCA 296

Appeal from: Thompson v Ellis [2024] FCA 1200

File number(s): QUD 699 of 2024

Judgment of: MEAGHER J

Date of Judgment: 17 February 2025

Date of publication of reasons: 31 March 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – 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: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 21

Date of hearing: 17 February 2025

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant appeared in-person

ORDERS

QUD 699 of 2024

BETWEEN:
EMMA THOMPSON

Applicant

AND:
REGISTRAR ELLIS

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 Registrar Ellis (QUD 699 of 2024)

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MEAGHER J

This matter purports to be an appeal against a decision and orders made by another Judge in two proceedings, QUD419 of 2023 and QUD420 of 2023, respectively.
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.
The appellant is a litigant in person. There was properly no appearance by the respondent, who has subsequently filed a submitting notice.
In the notice of appeal, the appellant claims that the primary judge:
… failed to identify that the letter of solicitor, Charles Londy of Londy Lawyers dated 22 July 2020 confirms that the legal proceedings in which Grace Lawyers represented Body Corporate for Arila Lodge CTS 14237, are absent jurisdiction and the legal costs are invalidly claimed.
Shortly before the first case management hearing, my associate brought to my attention that Mr Charles Londy has a very close, long standing, and ongoing quasi familial relationship with her and her family.
At the case management hearing, I advised the appellant of that relationship. In that regard, it is instructive to see my judgement in QUD709 of 2024, in which the first case management hearing in that matter occurred immediately prior to this case management hearing. In relation to this matter, the appellant submitted, in response to my question regarding Mr Londy’s relevance to this matter, as the case management hearing transcript discloses:
MS THOMPSON: Yes, he is in – because this matter is primarily about…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Thompson v Registar Ellis

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Registar Ellis [2025] FCA 296
Case: [2025] FCA 296
Decision Date: 17 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Emma Narelle Cathryn Thompson versus Registrar Ellis was brought before the court in a dispute that centred around the propriety of the judge's involvement in the proceedings. The appellant, Thompson, argued that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Registrar Ellis, which could potentially affect the impartiality of the hearing. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether a fair-minded lay observer, having the knowledge that the appellant had of the circumstances, might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the hearing of the proceeding.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the principles of judicial impartiality and the standard of reasonable apprehension of bias. The court had to assess whether the circumstances surrounding the case could lead a reasonable observer to doubt the judge's impartiality. The appellant argued that previous interactions between the Registrar Ellis and Thompson's legal representatives, along with other factors, created a situation where bias might be perceived. The court had to examine these claims in light of established legal precedents regarding judicial conduct and recusal.

The court, in its reasoning, considered the appellant's submissions and the evidence presented. It found that the appellant had not successfully demonstrated that a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend bias. The court held that the previous interactions, while possibly uncomfortable for the appellant, did not reach the threshold that would justify a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge's impartiality was not in question based on the evidence and submissions provided. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the proceedings were referred to the National Operations Registrar for reallocation to another judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

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 Registrar Ellis (QUD 699 of 2024)

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

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.

Appeal from:	Thompson v Ellis [2024] FCA 1200
File number(s):	QUD 699 of 2024
Judgment of:	MEAGHER J
Date of Judgment:	17 February 2025
Date of publication of reasons:	31 March 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – 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:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	21
Date of hearing:	17 February 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in-person

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