Your email of 6 September 2024 at 2.18pm has been referred to his Honour.
His Honour has instructed me to inform you, again, that the position set out in the email to you on 5 September 2024 at 1.30pm remains. In addition, his Honour has instructed me to inform you that an allegation of actual bias is a serious matter. That being so, his Honour considers that, if you wish to seek an order that he disqualify himself from this proceeding on the basis of bias, that relief should be sought formally. His Honour does not consider it appropriate that such a matter proceed informally, still less by email correspondence. Therefore, any such application should be made in accordance with r 17.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). If such an application is made, his Honour will deal with it in open court.
Finally, you should not proceed on the assumption in the last sentence of your email.
28 At 4.51 pm on the same day, the applicant sent yet another email with a communication addressed to me:
These emails are genuine steps to resolve the issue.
There is no pre-requirement under s39B of Judiciary Act or s75 of Constitution that I need to apply for recusal and the application was refused for me to file such a writ.
The application for recusal is not an interlocutory application seeking an order on parties of the proceedings.
(Original in italics.)
29 After these reasons had been prepared, and after the parties had been informed that judgment would be given on the questions I have identified on 14 October 2024, the applicant filed two interlocutory applications.
30 The first interlocutory application was dated 10 October 2024. The applicant seeks the following order:
An order to stay these proceedings until the Applicant's appeal at High Court for constitutional writs is determined.
31 The second interlocutory application was dated 11 October 2024. The applicant seeks the following order:
An order to disqualify Justice Yates from presiding these proceedings and future proceedings the Applicant is a party.
32 I will hear these application as soon as I can.
SHOULD THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT BE CHANGED?
33 As I have noted, the applicant commenced this proceeding against "Office of the Australian Information Commissioner" in relation to decisions under s 41 of the Privacy Act.
