Pinpoint · Judgment search

Ogawa v Attorney General's Department (Recusal Application)

[2023] FCA 1015

Federal Court of Australia · 28 August 2023 · Official judgment

Cited by 1 indexed judgment

All Cited 1

2023: 1 citing judgment 2023 2024 2025 2026
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2023] FCA 1096 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (10)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Aussie Airlines Pty Ltd v Australian Airlines Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 1308 Cited cited 47×
  2. Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48 Cited cited 574×
  3. Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63 Cited cited 1,161×
  4. Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] FCA 1054 Cited cited 31×
  5. British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie [2011] HCA 2 Cited cited 176×
  6. MZZXM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 405 Cited cited 10×
  7. Burgess v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 69 Cited cited 17×
  8. Praljak v State of Queensland [2022] FCA 572 Cited cited 2×
  9. Ogawa v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCA 929 Cited
  10. QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15 Cited cited 58×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.