(Supreme Court of Victoria) The court considered the issue of bias in a judge where he held shares in a company in the trial before him.
Held: The outcome of the litigation could not have realistically affected his judgment. He held a small number of shares in a large company. Charles JA said: ‘If there is a separate rule for automatic disqualification for financial interest, unrelated to a reasonable apprehension of bias, in my view the irrebuttable presumption of bias only arises (subject to questions of waiver or necessity) where the judicial officer has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding.’
Winnecke J said: ‘I agree with Charles JA that authority which binds this Court does not compel us to conclude that it is the mere shareholding by a judicial officer (‘judge’) in a party which, alone, constitutes the ‘disqualifying pecuniary interest’, but rather it is the potential interest, created by that shareholding, in the subject matter or outcome of the litigation which is the disqualifying factor.’
Charles JA, Winneke P
[1999] VSCA 35, [1999] 2 VR 573
Austlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Natural Justice
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.195580