M, Re

M, Re

The judge's language and conduct in private exchanges with advocates, without the parties present, crossed the line from robust case management to apparent bias, creating a real possibility that she had formed a concluded view adverse to the appellants before hearing their case. This procedural unfairness vitiated the proceedings and required the appeal to be allowed and the matter reheard before a different judge.

Parties
1st Appellant: A; 2nd Appellant: B; 1st Respondent: Z; 2nd Respondent: Local Authority; 3rd Respondent: M (by her litigation friend Y)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Apparent Judicial Bias, Best Interests, Case Management, Disclosure, Welfare of Incapacitated Persons
Mental Capacity Family Law Apparent Judicial Bias Best Interests Case Management Disclosure Welfare of Incapacitated Persons

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

1st Appellant

B

2nd Appellant

Z

1st Respondent

Local Authority

2nd Respondent

M (by her litigation friend Y)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was apparent bias by the judge in the Court of Protection proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge wrongly felt constrained by previous decisions in family proceedings
  3. 3 Whether there was a material procedural irregularity due to reliance on material from other proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's language and conduct in private exchanges with advocates, without the parties present, crossed the line from robust case management to apparent bias, creating a real possibility that she had formed a concluded view adverse to the appellants before hearing their case. This procedural unfairness vitiated the proceedings and required the appeal to be allowed and the matter reheard before a different judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter to be re-allocated to a High Court Judge for rehearing
  • Case to be listed for directions