Login
Judge disqualified for unusual conflict prior to bench
A Federal Court judge has disqualified himself from presiding over a proceeding he was recently involved in as senior counsel.
Naomi Neilson
Justice Cameron Moore stepped away from the Greensill Bank AG v Insurance Australia Limited proceedings after concerns were raised about his involvement in the matter prior to his appointment.
In his recent judgment, Justice Moore explained he appeared as senior counsel for one of the parties in November 2024 – just a month before his appointment to the bench – on an interlocutory application concerning the Harman obligation.
While the issue itself was not for determination, or had any direct bearing, in the substantive hearing, the application was “collateral”.
“I was briefed on that application because both senior counsel briefed for the Marsh [Limited and Marsh Pty] entities in the proceedings were unavailable on the date set down for the hearing of the Harman application. I was not briefed in the matter generally,” he said.
In January this year, after the proceedings were allocated to Justice Moore, he said he considered whether his involvement in the Harman application would prevent him from the allocation.
However, he clarified he did not have the benefit of the submissions by Greensill parties on its view of the Harman application.
Justice Moore said that the fact a judge may have appeared in the same matter they presided over “does not of itself necessarily give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias”, nor would the mere identification of the issues during an interlocutory dispute.
On the face of the matter, Justice Moore said his prior involvement would not necessarily require his disqualification.
“However, the [Greensill] parties contend the submissions advanced by me on behalf of the Marsh entities went further than merely identifying uncontroversial issues in the proceedings and suggested how those issues might be approached and resolved,” he said.
Having reviewed the material provided by Greensill, Justice Moore said he agreed certain passages “went further and were suggestive of a particular outcome on issues” that require resolution in the substantive proceedings and interlocutory issues.
“In those circumstances, a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that I might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of those issues, and I am satisfied that I ought to recuse myself from further involvement in the proceedings,” Justice Moore said.
The case is Greensill Bank AG v Insurance Australia Limited [2025] FCA 95.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
