NSW Local Court Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund Challenges Two Judicial Commission Decisions in Court of Appeal
Updated: 6 minutes ago
These proceedings concern the dismissal of Freund's complaint against Chief Judge Michael Allen and, following the NSW Attorney-General's referral of concerns about Freund's conduct to the Judicial Commission, the Commission's subsequent referral of those concerns to its Conduct Division.
Court Proceedings - 23 October 2026
The NSW Court of Appeal heard proceedings on Friday, 23 October 2026, concerning Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund's challenge to two decisions of the NSW Judicial Commission arising from a dispute with Local Court Chief Judge Michael Allen.
The matters concern the Judicial Commission's dismissal of Freund's complaint against Chief Judge Allen in June 2026 and, following the NSW Attorney-General's referral of concerns about Freund's conduct to the Commission, the Commission's subsequent referral of those matters to its Conduct Division in August 2026.
The hearing took place in Courtroom 12D of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, before their Honours Justice Mark Leeming, Justice Anthony Payne and Justice Richard McHugh.
The applicant was represented by Arthur Moses SC (New Chambers), together with three junior barristers. The respondents were represented by Brendan Lim SC (Eleven Wentworth Chambers) for the NSW Attorney-General (first respondent) and Justin Gleeson SC (Banco Chambers) for the Judicial Commission (second respondent), together with their respective junior counsel. Both sides had their respective teams of solicitors in attendance.
The proceedings were part-heard and adjourned, with the matter listed for further hearing on Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
Preliminary Matters
At the commencement of proceedings, Justice Leeming addressed the timetable for the hearing.
Mr Moses SC indicated that he would seek an adjournment of the proceedings in their entirety following the late service of affidavit material by the respondents on 22 October 2026, at approximately 11 pm.
The proposed adjournment application gave rise to exchanges concerning the timing of the material and the applicant's opportunity to address the matters raised.
Following discussions between the bench and counsel, the parties agreed to proceed with the hearing on the other grounds, while grounds 3A and 4A, concerning apprehended bias and related matters, were deferred to a later hearing date.
Background - The Dispute Between the Judicial Officers
The dispute between Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund and Chief Judge Michael Allen dates back to at least June 2024.
According to submissions advanced by Mr Moses SC on Freund's behalf, the dispute included allegations concerning the diminution of her judicial responsibilities and her treatment by Chief Judge Allen, including an alleged diminishing of her standing. Attempts had been made to resolve the dispute, including through mediation.
A central issue concerned the handling of criminal proceedings involving the adult child of another judicial officer.
As submitted by Mr Moses SC, referring to Freund's account in a statutory declaration, Allen allegedly accused her of “perverting the course of justice and lying” in connection with those proceedings. Her account also included an allegation concerning the throwing of a file on a desk.
Mr Moses SC submitted that Freund had not been sitting judicially since March 2026.
Judicial Commission's First Decision - Dismissal of Freund's Complaint Against Allen
Freund lodged a complaint with the NSW Judicial Commission alleging bullying and other conduct by Allen.
In June 2026, the Commission dismissed her complaint as unsubstantiated.
Judicial Commission's Second Decision - Referral of Concerns About Freund's Conduct
Mr Moses SC submitted, that following Freund's complaint, Allen corresponded with the Attorney-General of NSW, raising concerns about Freund's own conduct.
The Attorney-General subsequently referred those concerns to the Judicial Commission.
In August 2026, the Commission referred matters concerning Freund's conduct to its Conduct Division.
Questions concerning whether Freund's complaint against Allen had been made in good faith also arose in the context of the matters referred.
The referral to the Conduct Division did not constitute a determination of the allegations concerning Freund's conduct.
The matters before the Court of Appeal concerned the Commission's preliminary decisions and processes, rather than any findings following a Conduct Division determination or hearing.
Submissions Concerning the Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW)
Mr Moses SC commenced his substantive submissions by addressing the Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW) (the Act), its legislative framework and the statutory functions and powers of the Judicial Commission.
The submissions concerned the Commission's preliminary complaint-handling processes, including the assessment and dismissal of complaints and the referral of matters to the Conduct Division, together with the procedural obligations said to arise at those stages.
The Court heard submissions concerning judicial independence, natural justice and procedural fairness, including whether a judicial officer should be afforded an opportunity to respond to adverse matters affecting their interests or professional reputation.
A central issue was whether the Commission could make or communicate adverse observations or views concerning a judicial officer during its preliminary processes without first affording that officer an adequate opportunity to address the matters relied upon.
Mr Moses SC raised concerns about the consequences of such observations for Freund's reputation and professional standing.
The respondents' submissions addressed the nature and legal effect of the Commission's preliminary processes and decisions, including the distinction between adverse observations or views and legally binding or determinative findings.
The competing submissions concerned the scope of the Commission's statutory powers, the legal character of its decisions and the procedural fairness obligations said to arise at the relevant preliminary stages.
Judicial Protocol and Disclosure of Particulars
Particular attention was directed to a disputed judicial protocol concerning notification to the Chief Judge in circumstances involving judicial associations and the allocation or handling of proceedings.
The protocol was relevant to concerns raised about Freund's handling of the criminal proceedings involving the adult child of another judicial officer.
The applicant's submissions questioned whether the relevant protocol or manual had been adequately identified, disclosed or put to Freund before adverse observations and views concerning her conduct were made.
The Court heard submissions concerning the sufficiency of particulars provided to Freund about the alleged departure from the protocol or applicable procedural requirements.
The respondents' submissions addressed whether sufficient information had already been provided to the applicant and whether further disclosure was required during the Commission's preliminary processes.
The arguments also concerned the extent to which Freund's knowledge of the underlying circumstances was relevant to the adequacy of the information communicated to her.
Observations, Views, Opinions, Reports and Findings
A significant issue addressed during the hearing concerned the terminology used in the Commission's complaint-handling processes and decisions.
The exchanges included references to observations, views, opinions, reports and findings, and whether those expressions carried different legal consequences under the Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW).
The applicant's submissions raised concerns about the adverse implications of observations or views made concerning Freund's conduct, including their potential effect on her reputation and professional standing.
The respondents appeared to distinguish preliminary observations or assessments from findings having binding or determinative legal effect.
The Court heard submissions concerning whether the legal character of such observations affected the procedural fairness obligations said to arise before they were made or communicated.
Questions concerning the Commission's statutory powers, the terminology used in its decisions and the consequences of its preliminary assessments remained matters of contention.
Exchanges Concerning the Nature of the Allegations
During Mr Moses SC's submissions, Justice Leeming raised a question concerning whether aspects of his argument appeared to suggest “knowing untruth”.
In response, Mr Gleeson SC objected and, speaking in the third person, apparently referring to himself and his legal team, indicated that they would react in a “violent way” to any suggestion of that nature. He sought clarification as to whether Mr Moses SC was advancing such allegations and requested that Mr Moses SC make his position clear to the respondents and the Court.
Mr Moses SC questioned the use of the expression from the bar table, following which Justice Leeming clarified that the expression was to be taken metaphorically.
The Court afforded Mr Moses SC an opportunity to clarify his position, including whether further time was required.
Mr Moses SC subsequently made clear that he was not alleging bad faith or improper purpose.
Constitution of the Bench
During the hearing, Justice Leeming disclosed that the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal were on leave.
He explained that, in their absence, he had assumed responsibility for constituting the bench and had assigned the most senior available judges to hear the proceedings.
He also clarified that neither the Chief Justice nor the President had participated in selecting the bench.
The disclosure arose in the context of issues concerning the President of the Court of Appeal and the outstanding apprehended-bias grounds.
Related Reporting and Public Access
In preparing this article, reference was made to contemporaneous reporting by James Dowling of The Australian, published on 23 October 2026, together with firsthand observations and notes of the Court of Appeal proceedings.
Related article: James Dowling, The Australian, 23 October 2026: Judge Sharon Freund fights watchdog referral amid explosive judicial feud with Local Court chief.
Odtojan Bryl Justice Project (OBJP) and Odtojan Bryl Lawyers publish this account to provide freely accessible reporting of proceedings concerning the Judicial Commission's statutory complaint-handling processes and judicial accountability in New South Wales.
Disclaimer
This report is based on firsthand observations and contemporaneous notes taken during the NSW Court of Appeal hearing on 23 October 2026, together with related published reporting.
Every reasonable effort has been made to accurately and fairly report the proceedings, submissions and matters raised in court.
The report was prepared without access to the complete court transcript, affidavits, written submissions or all underlying documents. It reflects the representations, submissions and exchanges observed during the hearing and is not a verbatim transcript.
Statements attributed to parties or counsel are reported as allegations, submissions or positions advanced in court and should not be understood as independently established facts.
The proceedings were part-heard at the time reported. No conclusion is expressed concerning the merits of the outstanding grounds or the conduct referred to the Judicial Commission's Conduct Division.
This publication is provided for public information and reporting purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Comments