Valdez & Frazier (No 3)

The case of Valdez & Frazier (No 3) involved an appeal in family law proceedings. The father, Valdez, sought to disqualify a member of the Full Court from hearing the appeal based on apprehended bias. He alleged that the judiciary, including the trial judge, was biased in favor of the mother, Frazier, and would not consider the child's best interests as per the relevant legislation. Additionally, Frazier sought costs on an indemnity or party/party basis. The court had to decide whether the father's application for disqualification was valid and whether Frazier was entitled to the requested costs.

In assessing the father's application for disqualification, the court focused on the objective nature of the test for apprehended bias. The father's claims were deemed not to meet the threshold for disqualification because they did not provide any evidence or statements that could lead a fair-minded observer to question the judge's impartiality. The court emphasized that the father failed to recognize that the test is objective rather than subjective. The allegations against the judge were not supported by any admissible evidence, and thus, there was no basis for disqualification. Regarding the costs, the court ordered written submissions to be made.

The court dismissed the father's application for disqualification, as it did not meet the necessary threshold. The court also ordered written submissions on the issue of costs sought by Frazier. This decision underscores the importance of an objective assessment in determining bias and highlights the procedural steps required for such claims.