begraj_manakEAT0614
EAT Practice and Procedure : Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity – An Employment Judge was approached by Police Officers part way through a lengthy hearing. They gave her information prejudicial principally to one party, and asked her to keep their approach from the parties. She did so for a week, before revealing what had happened (to both the lay members who constituted the hearing panel, and the parties), but did not answer further questions from the Respondents. After taking time to consider their position, the Respondents applied to the Tribunal to recuse itself, which it did.
The appeal was brought by the Claimants, arguing that there was no proper basis for the recusal; that in any event the Respondents had waived their right to seek it by delay before applying. A Judge should be expected by the fair minded impartial observer to keep irrelevant matters out of mind when reaching a decision (‘compartmentalise’ that information); and the right of the Claimants to access to justice would be denied if there were to be recusal at such a late stage in the hearing, given the time and costs already incurred, such that it would be difficult to afford professional representation before a fresh tribunal.
Held: Waiver had not been argued below, and should have been, but in any event that ground was misplaced. There had been no act inconsistent with seeking recusal, and the Respondents lacked full information. The cost and inconvenience of a rehearing was relevant to justice, but of central importance was having a fair trial before a Tribunal that both was and appeared to be impartial, for as said in AWG Group Ltd v Morrison nothing less would do. The Tribunal’s decision was right: what in particular mattered here, so far as the ‘compartmentalisation’ ground was concerned, was not the possession of untested information prejudicial to one party, but the conduct of the Judge in keeping it, and the circumstances in which it was given to her, from the parties for a week. Appeal dismissed: though the facts of this case were extraordinary, guidance was given as to the approach Tribunals should take if approached by a third party about the merits of a case.
Langstaff J P
[2014] UKEAT 0496 – 13 – 1706
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Natural Justice
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.526665