Taylor v Williamsons (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1380 (17 July 2002)

Taylor v Williamsons (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1380 (17 July 2002)

There was no real possibility of bias as the judge acknowledged his error, recalled the draft judgment, and expressed willingness to reconsider the matter in light of full submissions. The fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that the judge was biased. The judge was entitled to refuse recusal and proceed to consider the parties' submissions before finalizing judgment.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1380
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Wilfred Taylor; Defendants/respondents: Williamsons (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Recusal of Judge, Judicial Impartiality, Draft Judgments, Professional Negligence by Solicitors
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Apparent Bias Recusal of Judge Judicial Impartiality Draft Judgments Professional Negligence by Solicitors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilfred Taylor

Claimant/appellant

Williamsons (A Firm)

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's distribution of a draft judgment before considering closing submissions gave rise to apparent bias requiring recusal
  2. 2 Whether the judge was entitled to recall and reconsider his draft judgment after submissions were made
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should bear the costs of the recusal application

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real possibility of bias as the judge acknowledged his error, recalled the draft judgment, and expressed willingness to reconsider the matter in light of full submissions. The fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that the judge was biased. The judge was entitled to refuse recusal and proceed to consider the parties' submissions before finalizing judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
  • Costs order made pursuant to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act