The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of the British Tinnitus Association (BTA). He had declared this and invited objections before the hearing. The defendant later unearthed other cross connections, these were put, the judge took advice of leading counsel, and did not recuse himself. Other connections later became apparent allegedly between the claimant’s solicitors and the BTA.
Held: The judge had acted correctly. The objections included false assertions as to the activities of the BTA and exaggerated the connection between the claimant’s solicitors and the BTA. As to the argument that a judge with trinities should not hear a case on hearing loss: ‘It amounts to a contention that no judge with any particular disability should hear a case involving that disability. A judge with poor eyesight or only one eye could not hear a case about an eye injury, a judge in a wheelchair could not hear a case about an injury which made the victim wheelchair bound and so on. And, taken to its logical conclusion, the argument would meant that a disabled judge could not hear a case about disability living allowance, or a woman judge hear a case about sexual discrimination against a woman. . . This objection . . . Has no substance.’
Smith LJ considered the interpretation by Asquith LJ of the words ‘reasonably practicable’ and said that, in referring to the ‘quantum of risk’, Asquith LJ must have been referring to the gravity of the harm which might occur as well as the likelihood of its occurrence.
Jacob LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 566, Times 18-Jun-2009, [2009] CP Rep 38
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Edwards v National Coal Board CA 1949
A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by . .
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Another CA 11-Jun-2008
Application by claimant for order that the respondents would be responsible for their own costs of the appeal irrespective of its outcome. . .
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group CA 22-May-2009
The court considered the responsibility of employers for hearing losses resulting from exposure to noise at a level not at the time appreciated to cause a risk of injury. Smith LJ considered the interpretation by Asquith LJ of the words ‘reasonably . .
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd CA 28-Jun-2007
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Mann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
See Also – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Natural Justice, Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.346798