@Fugasi"as you suggest the apprehended bias is one of the party...

@Fugasi
"as you suggest the apprehended bias is one of the party and not individuals within that party" source: 73508904

Incorrect, just as we saw in the last Federal Court case, the judge himself said the apprehended bias was of the "decision maker".

I encourage you to read what the Federal Court judge said in his judgement:

"The test is the same for administrative decision makers as it is for judicial officers. Its content may be different, however, as what may be expected of a judicial or quasi-judicial officer may be different to a person making a purely administrative decision: Ebner at [4]; Hot Holdings at [70]. The rule against apprehended bias is a rule of procedural fairness or natural justice: Ebner at [4]; Hot Holdings at [68] and see e.g. Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70. If the rules of natural justice have been breached the Court may, in its discretion, make an order quashing or setting aside the Decision..." source: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0086

"26.2. in light of s 59 of the Act, a fair-minded lay observer might therefore reasonably apprehend that the Joint Authority constituted by Mr Morrison as the responsible Commonwealth Minister, together with the responsible State Minister, might not have brought an open mind to determining the Application." source: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0086