Last week, new titles for the Federal Court’s top brass came into effect, and it’s important that court users grasp the subtle yet important regrading.

The changes were announced by the newly minted Deputy Principal Registrar, Nicola Colbran, and are the result of an “internal review … to simplify the range of titles …”

In most instances, a title that carries the word “national” will change to the word “senior”.

For instance, the “National Judicial Registrar – Original Jurisdiction” becomes the “Senior Judicial Registrar – Original Jurisdiction”.

“Senior National Judicial Registrar” and “National Judicial Registrar” are henceforth both to be known as “Senior Judicial Registrar”.

No doubt, the confusion will be sorted in good time.

This chart may help in deciphering the word salad.

It seemed only yesterday (April 2018 in fact) that Sia Lagos, then under the wing of Wokka Soden, told the troops that the word “judicial” would be added to the titles for district, appeals and deputy district registrars.

The judges gave their “overwhelming support” for the changes – the idea being that this would improve “the status of the Federal Court registrar role”.

Here’s what Sia said back then about the gleaming new titles.

This was followed by confirmation that the new branding would take effect on May 28, 2018 – in line with the National Court Framework, whose purpose was to: (link to doc 3)

“… reinvigorate the court’s approach to case management by further modernising the court’s operations so that the court is better placed to meet the demands of litigants and can operate as a truly national and international court.”

Reassuringly, Nicola now says: “The change in title does not affect the current roles or duties of registrars …”

In which event, why bother? Why remove “national” from these working bee titles? Does the word “senior” add extra shine to “judicial”? How many reworkings are needed before perfection is achieved for these titular adornments?

As it stands, the Federal Court Act envisioned only modest descriptions for senior staff, such as “District Registrar”.

The judge’s daughter

HH Darryl Rangiah, a Queensland-based judge of the FCA, called for submissions and put his thinking cap on after he was asked to recuse himself because his daughter works for the AGS.

Douglas Keith Rowles was in court seeking judicial review of the Repatriation Commission’s refusal to give him a pension and a Gold Card.

Rowles alleged the AGS solicitor with carriage of the matter, Mr Jamie Watts, had approached him directly about submission timelines and preliminary orders to be made at the directions heading – without having been properly entered an appearance.

In addition, it was suggested that the judge was supposed to have facilitated some ex parte communication with Mr Watts.

It was found that the evidence didn’t support this contention.

The more exciting ground for recusal was that Justice Rangiah’s daughter is employed by the AGS in Brisbane.

The applicant asked for his application to be heard on the papers because he is hearing impaired and has tinnitus. All this involved the vacation of the case management hearing.

Affidavits and written submissions were filed, including an affidavit from a senior executive lawyer at AGS, Jennifer Davenport.

She deposed that no AGS lawyer outside the Dispute Resolution Group has been involved with the file, and the judge’s daughter is a junior lawyer in the Constitutional Litigation Unit in the Office of General Counsel – a million miles from the action with the repat people.

Jamie Watts is one of about 354 lawyers working in the Dispute Resolution group. AGS has over 500 lawyers working in 40 different areas of law related to the government.

For guidance, Rangiah referred himself to the third edition of the Guide to Judicial Conduct, published by the Council of the Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand.

In fact, he underlined the relevant bit which advised there is no need for judges to recuse themselves “merely because the person in question is a partner in, or employee of, a firm of solicitors or public authority acting for a party. In such cases, it is a matter of considering all the circumstances, including the nature and extent of the involvement in the matter of the person in question”.

Not surprisingly, His Hon followed the book and declined to recuse himself:

“The AGS conducts a very large volume of litigation in the Federal Court. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that I might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the proceeding, merely because my daughter is one of over 500 lawyers employed by the AGS.

In these circumstances, I am satisfied that my relationship with my daughter and her employment with the AGS does not create any reasonable apprehension of bias.”

It didn’t require the preparation of written submissions because the Chief Justices had done all the work for him.

Needless to say, case management has been delayed while detailed consideration was given to the employment of the judge’s daughter in a part of AGS remote from people handling repat cases.

It’s hoped the judge doesn’t have to do this every time the AGS is acting in a case before him.

Meanwhile, eight months after he filed his application, Douglas is no closer to a veteran’s pension.

Rowles v Repatriation Commission (Department of Veterans’ Affairs