Federal Court of Australia

Scott v Scott (Recusal Application) (No 2) [2026] FCA 1314

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Order 2 of the Appellant’s interlocutory application dated 28 June 2026 (and accepted for filing on 7 July 2026) (recusal application) be dismissed.

2.    Order 2 of the recusal application be listed for hearing before the Full Court on 27 August 2026 in Adelaide.

3.    Costs of the recusal application hearing by a single judge be reserved.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex tempore, revised from transcript

NEEDHAM J:

1    On 7 July 2026, the appellant, Dr Susan Jane Scott, filed an interlocutory application seeking that I be disqualified from case management of this appeal and from hearing this appeal. The grounds given were apprehension of bias, prejudice, and prejudgment.

2    I dealt with the question of whether I should be disqualified from case managing the appeal in my reasons given on 21 July 2026 in Scott v Scott (Recusal Application) [2026] FCA 1022 (case management recusal decision). On convening the Full Court today to hear the appeal, Dr Scott indicated that she wished to agitate order 2, which is that I be disqualified from hearing the appeal.

3    In accordance with the plurality in QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15; 279 CLR 148 referred to at [10] of the case management recusal decision, it is appropriate that I deal with the question of my disqualification sitting alone.

4    Dr Scott has made some oral submissions on why I should be disqualified, contending that I made an arbitrary and lawless decision based on prejudgment and prejudice, and relied on her contention that the direction that I made for particular submissions not being filed was an extra-curial decision based on gossip and rumour, and that no fair-minded observer would be confident that I would conduct this appeal properly and with an impartial mind.

5    There has been no further evidence or precedents referred to in this morning’s oral submissions by the appellant, and I maintain my view as expressed at [8] of my previous decision that more would be needed than merely having made a direction which was in accordance with the order of McDonald J of 10 November 2025 that submissions for which there had been no leave granted should not be filed.

6    Accordingly, I dismiss order 2 of the interlocutory application and I reserve costs.

7    I will now adjourn and reconvene as part of the Full Court, and ask Vandongen J to give the first judgment.

Associate:

Dated:    7 September 2026