Appeals by a father against orders made in wardship proceedings concerning M, a young boy who was born on 5 July 2012 and is currently in Singapore where he is being cared for by his paternal grandparents. The trial judge had made it plain to a recalcitrant father that, if he did not take action against the child’s grandparents in Singapore for the return of the child to the UK, he would be likely to be imprisoned for a lengthy term. He took no such action and she declined to recuse herself from the subsequent committal hearing.
Held: Kitchin LJ criticised the judge’s very short judgment. She had not make clear that, despite her earlier observations and comments, she had not pre-judged the question whether the father was in deliberate breach of her orders and should be sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment. There was therefore an appearance of bias or, at any rate, pre-judgment.
Maurice Jay, McFarlane, Kitchin LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 905
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Otkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Cited – Otkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Litigation Practice
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534296