Olijnyk, A.2014-11-192014-11-192013The Sydney Law Review, 2013; 35(4):761-7800082-05121444-9528http://hdl.handle.net/2440/87313In 2011, the High Court handed down judgments in two cases that raised a similar issue: the risk that an interlocutory judgment can create an appearance of bias on the pan of a judge. This issue highlights the tension between, on the one hand, the principle that judges must be, and appear to be, impartial; and, on the other, the changes to the judicial role brought about by the demands of efficiency. This article uses the two cases as a basis for examining the way in which the bias rule currently operates in relation to interlocutory judgments. It concludes that the current approach places undue emphasis on a risk of prejudgment of specific matters, and advocates a widening of locus in the application of the test for apprehended bias.enCOPYRIGHT 2013 Sydney Law Schoolinterlocutory judgementHigh CourtJudge impartialbiasJournal article002013402316779Olijnyk, A. [0000-0003-0140-7657]