Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others 0609 – 05 – 1407: EAT 14 Jul 2006

EAT Appeal, on basis that Chairman ought to have recused himself from pre-hearing review of a second action, because of outstanding complaints against him of apparent bias/alleged misconduct in respect of an earlier hearing between the same parties in the first action, which was being appealed. Neither the existence nor the nature of those complaints made it necessary or appropriate for the Chairman to recuse himself, and there was no merit in the two other points raised by way of challenge to the Chairman’s decision on the pre-hearing review. Locabail, Lodwick, Amec and Dobbs in the CA, and the robust approach to recusal applications based upon the existence of outstanding complaints, followed: and dicta in Breeze Benton and Deman disapproved. The careful and proper consideration by the EAT of a bias allegation or a recusal application should not necessarily require, particularly if the EAT Rule 11 procedure was operated at the sift stage, cross-examination or a full, or even a preliminary, hearing and might well be capable of being dealt with under Rule 3(7) and (10) of the EAT Rules.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0609 – 05 – 1407

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoAnsar v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others 0152 – 06 – 1407 EAT 14-Jul-2006
ECJ Appeal against dismissal of claims of race discrimination and victimisation on grounds of apparent bias/judicial misconduct of ET and perversity/error of law. Appeal on both grounds dismissed. No reason why, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243221