When “Open Justice” Ends at the Mute Button: Serious Questions About Justice Michael Lee’s Treatment of a Self-Represented Litigant By Oliver James Reeve On 23 July 2026, I appeared remotely before Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court of Australia in two applications for leave to appeal: Reeve v Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, QUD280/2026; and Reeve v Fair Work Commission and Others, QUD286/2026. I appeared without legal representation. I had prepared extensive affidavits explaining why I believed Justice Meagher was required to recuse herself from the underlying proceedings. Those affidavits relied upon a large documentary record that included court documents, correspondence, recordings, corporate information, regulatory material and evidence that I said contradicted important factual claims made by respondents. The hearing ended not with my participation in the delivery of judgment, but with Justice Lee directing that my audio be silenced. I was then disconnected. The Court continued without me. The authenticated order later issued in both cases states only: “The applications for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.” No reasons appear in the order. That sequence raises serious questions about procedural fairness, transparency and the treatment of self-represented litigants in one of Australia’s superior courts. The order itself can be viewed here: Orders dated 23 July 2026⁠. A hearing that ended before I heard the decision The transcript in my possession records Justice Lee saying: “I direct that the audio feed of Mr Reeve to the Court be silenced, although I wish to ensure that he has the opportunity of hearing my…” The record then ends. I did not hear the remainder of that sentence. I did not hear the reasons for judgment. I was removed from the remote hearing and the proceeding continued in my absence. There is an obvious distinction between muting a litigant so that a judge can deliver uninterrupted reasons and disconnecting that person so that they cannot hear the reasons at all. Whatever view is taken of the tense exchanges that preceded the disconnection, I was the applicant in proceedings determining whether two appeals would be permitted to continue. I was entitled to understand the decision being made about my cases. A judge may control proceedings. A judge may prevent interruptions. A judge may firmly direct a litigant to address the relevant legal test. But courtroom control should not become practical exclusion from the determination of one’s own proceeding. The orders explain nothing The orders do not identify: which proposed grounds of appeal were considered; whether any proposed ground was arguable; whether I would suffer substantial injustice if leave were refused; whether the extensive materials identified in my affidavits were considered; why the two distinct proceedings were dismissed together; or why costs were ordered. Courts frequently deliver reasons orally. But where a remote litigant is disconnected before those reasons are delivered, a bare order is not an adequate practical substitute. I cannot assess an explanation I was prevented from hearing. I cannot identify possible legal error without knowing the Court’s reasoning. I cannot determine whether the Court understood my grounds, considered my affidavits or addressed my central argument. The problem is not merely that I lost. The problem is that I was excluded from hearing why. Justice Lee’s public commitment to open justice The circumstances are particularly troubling because Justice Lee has publicly spoken about the importance of open justice. In a 2024 speech titled Open justice: A national approach?, he discussed the foundational role of transparent courts and the importance of justice being conducted in a manner visible to the public.  That commitment should apply not only to nationally televised litigation involving prominent media organisations, but also to self-represented litigants whose proceedings attract no public attention. Open justice is not achieved merely because a court formally sits in public. It also requires an intelligible process, meaningful participation and access to the reasons by which judicial power is exercised. A litigant disconnected before judgment is delivered has not meaningfully received open justice. A judicial style built around forceful criticism Justice Lee has developed a prominent public profile partly because of his willingness to use vivid, condemnatory and sometimes memorable language. His judgment in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation proceedings criticised numerous participants, including the applicant, witnesses, Network Ten personnel and lawyers. The ABC characterised it as a scathing assessment from which almost no significant participant escaped criticism.  He later criticised public comments made by Network Ten’s lawyer and described aspects of those comments as misleading.  Direct judicial language is not itself misconduct. Sometimes firm criticism is necessary. But a forceful judicial style carries a corresponding responsibility: restraint must not disappear when dealing with a distressed or unrepresented person. Judges exercise institutional power. Litigants do not meet them as equals. The more confrontational a hearing becomes, the more important it is for the judge—not merely the litigant—to preserve procedural clarity, fairness and dignity. My conduct does not answer the procedural questions I acknowledge that the hearing deteriorated. I became angry. I interrupted. I used language that I should not have used in a Federal Court hearing. I do not rely upon my frustration as an excuse, and I understand that those exchanges will be used to criticise me. But my conduct does not retrospectively answer the central procedural questions: Was the complete evidentiary basis of the applications understood? Were the affidavits properly considered? Were the proposed errors in Justice Meagher’s reasoning addressed? Was each leave application independently determined? Was I disconnected deliberately or through a technical failure? Did Justice Lee know that I could no longer hear? Why was the hearing continued after my connection ended? Where are the complete reasons? A litigant’s loss of composure does not relieve a court of its responsibility to administer justice according to law. Judicial patience is most meaningful when it is tested. The underlying evidentiary issue Justice Lee repeatedly stated that the hearing concerned leave to appeal rather than the ultimate merits of my allegations. As a general proposition, that was correct. But my evidence was not offered solely to prove the underlying allegations at the leave hearing. It was also relied upon to demonstrate why I said Justice Meagher’s treatment of the proceedings, documentary record and cumulative procedural history arguably involved appealable error. My filed affidavits were substantial. They explained that the recusal applications did not arise from one adverse ruling. They concerned the cumulative effect of numerous procedural events, evidentiary disputes, registry interactions and alleged failures to address contradictory material. The question was not whether Justice Lee should conduct the final trial during the leave application. The question was whether there was a sufficiently arguable case that Justice Meagher’s recusal decisions were affected by error and whether refusal of leave would cause substantial injustice. That inquiry could not sensibly be performed without understanding the evidentiary and procedural basis upon which the alleged errors depended. A broader problem for self-represented litigants Australian courts routinely acknowledge the difficulties faced by self-represented litigants. But acknowledgment is not enough. A person without counsel may struggle to distinguish evidence from submission, the underlying merits from appellate error, or factual injustice from the precise legal test governing leave. The judicial response must be to identify the real issue clearly and permit a reasonable opportunity to address it. It should not be to reduce a complex case to whichever documents happen to be easiest to identify, dismiss the applications, disconnect the litigant and provide an unexplained costs order. Justice Lee’s own career began in large commercial litigation. Before his judicial appointment, he was a senior litigation partner, later senior counsel, and a leading practitioner in complex class actions.  That experience is far removed from the position of an unrepresented individual attempting to manage thousands of pages of evidence while dealing with medical difficulties and multiple related proceedings. The imbalance demands greater care, not less. This is not a demand for immunity from criticism I do not suggest that self-represented litigants should be permitted to abuse judges, ignore directions or derail hearings. Nor do I argue that every procedural disagreement proves bias or corruption. I argue something more basic: A person should be permitted to hear the judgment in their own case. A court exercising coercive public power should explain why it has dismissed an application. A judge should ensure that an unrepresented litigant understands what material is being considered. Where the litigant is removed from a remote hearing before reasons are given, the Court should promptly provide the complete transcript, audio and written reasons. Those are not radical demands. They are minimum requirements of accountable judicial power. The unanswered questions I have requested: The complete official audio recording. The complete transcript, including everything after my disconnection. Confirmation of whether I was muted, removed or disconnected by technical failure. The precise time my connection ended. Confirmation of whether Justice Lee knew I was no longer present. Any oral or written reasons delivered after my disconnection. The Court record identifying all material considered. An explanation of the basis upon which costs were ordered. Until those records are produced, the public cannot independently assess what occurred. The Court should not expect unquestioning confidence while withholding the very record required to determine whether confidence is justified. Judicial accountability is not contempt for the judiciary Judges must be independent. They must also be accountable through reasons, appeals, open hearings and accurate records. Criticism based on evidence is not an attack on the rule of law. It is part of the rule of law. Justice Lee has publicly championed open justice. The Federal Court should now demonstrate that commitment by releasing the complete record of what occurred after I was removed from the hearing. Until that happens, the dismissal of QUD280/2026 and QUD286/2026 will remain overshadowed by a simple and disturbing fact: The Court continued deciding my case after I was no longer allowed to hear it.