Background
Dr Susan Jane Scott, appearing in person, applied for Justice Needham to be disqualified both from managing her appeal and from sitting on the Full Court that would hear it. She alleged apprehended bias, prejudice and prejudgment.
Justice Needham had already rejected the case-management limb of the application in Scott v Scott (Recusal Application) [2026] FCA 1022. When the Full Court convened to hear the appeal, Dr Scott pursued the remaining limb, seeking Justice Needham’s disqualification from the appeal hearing. She argued that the judge had made an arbitrary and lawless decision based on prejudice and prejudgment, particularly by directing that submissions filed without leave not be accepted.
The Court’s Holding
Sitting alone in accordance with the approach identified in QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15; 279 CLR 148, Justice Needham dismissed the remaining recusal request. Her Honour found that Dr Scott’s oral submissions supplied no further evidence or precedents and did not justify departing from the conclusion reached in the earlier recusal decision.
The challenged filing direction was consistent with an order made by Justice McDonald on 10 November 2025 that submissions for which leave had not been granted should not be filed. Justice Needham concluded that making that direction, without more, was insufficient to warrant disqualification. Costs of the single-judge recusal hearing were reserved, after which the Court was to reconvene as the Full Court.
Key Takeaways
- A judge asked to recuse herself from a Full Court appeal may determine the disqualification question sitting alone before the appeal proceeds.
- On the facts presented, a filing direction that implemented an existing court order did not, without more, justify the judge’s disqualification.
- The Court confined its reasoning to Dr Scott’s allegations and submissions; it did not formulate a general requirement that every recusal applicant produce additional evidence or legal authorities.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the Federal Court may address a recusal application immediately before a Full Court appeal while keeping the recusal issue procedurally distinct from the appeal itself.
It also shows that an adverse procedural direction will not necessarily support disqualification where the direction merely gives effect to an existing order and the applicant identifies nothing further warranting a different conclusion.