Bienstein v Bienstein

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAMcHUGH, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJHELEN BIENSTEIN   APPELLANTANDSIMON BIENSTEIN  RESPONDENTBienstein v Bienstein[2003] HCA 713 February 2003M140/2000ORDERPurported appeal struck out as incompetent.Representation:No appearance for the appellantThe respondent did not participateNotice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSBienstein v BiensteinPractice and procedure – High Court – Removal of proceedings – Proceedings for adult child maintenance in Family Court – Whether a cause pending in a federal court – Whether matter arises under the Constitution or involves its interpretation.Practice and procedure – High Court – Appeal from decision of a single Justice – Whether leave to appeal is required – Whether order to refuse removal of proceedings is final or interlocutory.Courts and judges – Bias – Application for disqualification of a Justice – Whether reasonable apprehension of bias – Justice had practised professionally in city where proceedings originated – No imputed bias.Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth, ss 34, 40.Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 118.McHUGH, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJ. This is a purported appeal from an order of Hayne J made on 1 December 2000 dismissing an application for removal of proceedings pending in the Family Court under s 40(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The parties to the "appeal" are wife and husband for the purpose of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). They have been involved in various proceedings in the Family Court that arose out of a claim for maintenance in respect of a...