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 hear the substantive appeal.
Held: There was no reason to ask the judge to be recused. The test for bias had been set down in the In re Medicaments case, and confirmed in Magill. The judge had heard representations, and made a decision which he knew would be re-argued in full at a full appeal hearing, and that a different decision might then be reached. There was no reasonable basis for thinking he would not approach a full hearing with an open mind.
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Keene
Times 19-Aug-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1104
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 52.3, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4) CA 26-Jul-2001
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 . .
CitedPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .

Cited by:
CitedCairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
CitedAl-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
CitedGrace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Jun-2014
What is ‘totally without merit’?
The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.174714