The parties had expended very considerable sums preparing for a hearing. The hearing became abortive when it was questioned whether a member of the court had given the appearance of bias. The parties sought payment of their wasted costs from the Lord Chancellor, as the person responsible for providing the court, on the basis that their right to a fair trial had been infringed.
Held: The application was refused. One party as a representative body was not a victim, even though no representative order had been made. The court had remedied the defect by later providing an impartial tribunal before which the parties’ rights could be settled, and there had been no loss of the right to a fair trial.
Judges:
Phillips MR, Brooke LJ, Walker LJ
Citations:
Times 06-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods RPC 14-Apr-1999
Before granting leave to review the exemption of a class of goods from the resale price maintenance prohibition, there must be established prima facie evidence of a material change in circumstances, which might have led the earlier court to a . .
See also – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) RPC 17-Nov-2000
Part way into a trial, one of the judges in a case applied for a position with a company. She discovered that a director of that company was due to give evidence. She brought the circumstances to the attention of the remaining court and parties. She . .
See also – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor v Williamsons (a Firm) CA 17-Jul-2002
The judge concluded hearing evidence, and requested counsel to make their submissions before a certain date. Before that date, and forgetful of his request, he issued his judgement. On realizing his mistake, he withdrew his judgment. The claimant . .
Cited – Sengupta v Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening CA 31-Jul-2002
The appellant had applied for leave to appeal to a single judge, who had refused the application. He appealed and was granted leave by two judges. He then objected when the single judge who had refused leave was included in the panel of judges to . .
Cited – AA Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited CA 9-Aug-2002
The appellant had had his case considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He complained that his opponent had been represented in court by an advocate who himself sat part time in the EAT, and that this would lead to undue weight and respect . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 3) HL 31-Jul-2003
Application for permission to appeal to the House.
Held: Rejected because it seeks to proceed without the prior leave of the Inner House, and ‘ In any event, the effect of the interlocutor of 11 September 2002 is that there is for the time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.159496