Priestley v Godwin

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJMICHAEL PRIESTLEY  PLAINTIFFANDANNWYN GODWIN, PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER & ORS  DEFENDANTSPriestley v Godwin [2008] HCA 5917 December 2008C7/2008ORDER1.     The application is dismissed.2.The plaintiff is to pay the first to third defendants' costs of the application.RepresentationThe plaintiff appeared in personMr G R Kennett for the first, second and third defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)Submitting appearance for the fourth and fifth defendantsNotice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSPriestley v GodwinAdministrative law – Practice and procedure – Prerogative writs – Proceedings collateral to application under s 13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – Application by respondent for summary dismissal – Application for judge's recusal – Allegations of bias – Validity of s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – Validity of O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules.Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A.Federal Court Rules, O 20 r 5.FRENCH CJ.   IntroductionOn 14 July 2008 the plaintiff, Michael Priestley, an employee of the Department of Parliamentary Services, filed an application in this Court for an order to show cause why prohibition should not issue against two judges of the Federal Court of Australia to prevent them from further hearing proceedings which he had commenced in that Court on 3 January 2008.  Other relief sought included certiorari to quash decisions of the judges declining to disqualify themselves from hearing the case...