The court gave its reasons for setting aside a decision of the judge not to recuse himself from an ancillary relief application, having made prejudicial remarks during a pre-trial hearing.
Held: The judge’s remarks were at such a level as to justify his recusal. They were inexcusable. As an attempt to lighten the proceedings, they overstepped the mark.
Ward LJ said: ‘It is an embarrassment to our administration of justice that recusal applications, once almost unheard of, are now so frequently coming to this Court in ways that do none of us any good. It is, however, right that they should. The procedure for doing so is, however, concerning. It is invidious for a judge to sit in judgment on his own conduct in a case like this but in many cases there will be no option but that the trial judge deal with it himself or herself. If circumstances permit it, I would urge that first an informal approach be made to the judge, for example by letter, making the complaint and inviting recusal. Whilst judges must heed the exhortation in Locabail not to yield to tenuous or frivolous objections, one can with honour totally deny the complaint but still pass the case to a colleague. If a judge does not feel able to do so, then it may be preferable, if it is possible to arrange it, to have another judge take the decision, hard though it is to sit in judgment of one’s colleague, for where the appearance of justice is at stake, it is better that justice be done independently by another rather than require the judge to sit in judgment of his own behaviour.’.
Judges:
Ward LJ, Mummery LJ, Wilson LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1149
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology CA 20-Feb-2009
In 2000 the claimant succeeded in his claim for discrimination, but had not pursued his remedy. He now appealed against a refusal to allow him to take it further. He had initially failed to pursue the matter for ill health. He later refused to . .
Cited – Griffiths v Griffiths (Decision On Recusal) FD 9-Dec-2021
Held: Refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.261312