Why can’t we be friends? – The necessity of judicial impartiality in family law

In the usual course, practitioners who excel in their application of the law and in advocating for their client’s interests quite often are the ones who are appointed later in their careers as judges. In what is now known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court), judges have often spent years working as barristers, requiring them to have close and positive relationships with members of the legal profession. In the highly specialised field of family law, this may mean those practitioners who were once colleagues may find themselves appearing in front of judges that are well known to them, and who they may consider to be friends.

Some practitioners may hold these friendships out as a benefit to clients. The High Court of Australia has sought to temper this, with the recent case of Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29 strongly warning practitioners that contact with judges during proceedings is not on except in “the most exceptional of cases”.

In the long running case of Charisteas v Charisteas, the High Court set aside certain property orders made by the Trial Judge on the basis of apprehended bias. The difference of apprehended bias, versus actual bias, is an important distinction. What this means is that there were no allegations that the Judge engaged in behaviour or conduct that was prejudicial against one party over another. Rather, it means that a normal, everyday person (known as the “fair-minded lay observer”), may have perceived the judge to be biased.   

In this particular case, the circumstances involve the Trial Judge and the barrister for the Wife, who during the course of the proceedings:

1. Met for “drink or coffee” on no less than four occasions; and

2. Spoke on the telephone; and

3. Exchanged text messages during the trial, pausing for submissions, but continuing again before judgment had issued.

The barrister for the Wife failed to disclose the relationship, or the communications to the lawyers for the Husband or their barrister. Instead, the lawyers for the Husband found out through “gossip”.

It was in this context that the High Court found that the “fair-minded lay observer” would likely have thought the Trial Judge’s impartiality was compromised. The basis for this perception was the communications that were not disclosed, and the meetings on several occasions. The Husband successfully appealed to the High Court and the Wife was ordered to pay his costs along with some of the orders being set aside.

The important takeaway from Charisteas v Charisteas is that there is no excuse for communicating improperly with the Court. All communications, ideally should:

1. Include all other parties either in writing or in their presence;

2. Be agreed, down to the wording, prior to contacting the Court;

3. Be proper with all relevant parties, from the judge down to the Court registry staff;

4. Be mindful and courteous up to the time judgment issues.

At any stage of litigation, the importance of judicial impartiality cannot be understated. It is a confusing and sometimes misunderstood element of going to Court. It may help you better understand judicial impartiality, and its impact on your Court proceedings, by getting advice tailored to your circumstances. If you would like to discuss your matter and how we can assist you, contact us today on (02) 6225 7040 or by email on info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or get started now online.