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 appealed his refusal to recuse himself and order a re-trial.
Held: This was an unfortunate case, but there was no element of bias, and the judge having corrected his mistake could not be thought to be biased. A fair minded and informed observer would not have seen bias.
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Clarke
Times 09-Aug-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1380
England and Wales
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.174708