CASE PROCEDURES – revoke or vary decision – apprehension of bias – s.603 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to revoke decision dismissing application for unfair dismissal relief and Full Bench decision refusing permission to appeal – leave also sought for further appeal to fresh Full Bench – applicant’s father complained that original decision was incorrect in stating he attended meeting as support person – grounds for relief were bias relating to support person reference; apprehended bias on Commissioner’s part; and new evidence – application was referred to Commissioner who made original decision – accusation of bias was characterised as attempt to re-litigate issues already determined and unsuccessfully appealed – Commissioners must determine matters referred to them unless proper basis to refuse to do so – test for bias is whether fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that Commissioner might not bring impartial and unprejudiced mind to resolution of question to be decided [Ebner] – mere assertion after the fact that Commission was prejudiced does not establish bias – assertion of prejudgment arising from directions hearings unsupported by evidence – disagreement with decision or deflated confidence after adverse finding cannot on its own demonstrate bias – not established that original decision was affected by actual or apprehended bias, nor that there was any proper basis upon which Commissioner should refuse to determine application – power in s.603(1) must be construed not to permit single Member to vary or revoke appeal decision by Full Bench [Grabovsky] – acceding to request to allow new evidence and leave to appeal to fresh Full Bench would undermine statutory appeal process and be inconsistent with public interest that there be finality in litigation – neither decision to be revoked and no re-hearing to be ordered – application dismissed – Commission found error on face of original decision concerning identity of support person – correction of error to issue under s.603(2)(a) on Commission’s own initiative – correction to remedy error did not affect substantive conclusion that there was no unreasonable refusal of presence of support person. Application by Mr O’Connor
…
