Dorman & Ors v Clinton Devon Farms Partnership [2019] EWHC 2988 (QB) (07 November 2019)

Dorman & Ors v Clinton Devon Farms Partnership [2019] EWHC 2988 (QB) (07 November 2019)

The judge's case management orders were unjust and based on errors of fact regarding responsibility for delay; the orders were made without giving counsel an opportunity to address the court, amounting to procedural unfairness. The judge's comments and conduct, taken together, would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias, requiring recusal.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2988
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: James Dorman; Claimant and Respondent: Caroline Dorman; Claimant and Respondent: Kirsty Clode; Claimant and Respondent: Andrew Turton; Defendant and Appellant: Clinton Devon Farms Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Case Management, Recusal, Apparent Bias, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Judicial Conduct Case Management Recusal Apparent Bias Costs Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Dorman

Claimant and Respondent

Caroline Dorman

Claimant and Respondent

Kirsty Clode

Claimant and Respondent

Andrew Turton

Claimant and Respondent

Clinton Devon Farms Partnership

Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case management orders (unless order, attendance order, indemnity costs order) were justified
  2. 2 Whether the judge's conduct gave rise to apparent bias warranting recusal

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's case management orders were unjust and based on errors of fact regarding responsibility for delay; the orders were made without giving counsel an opportunity to address the court, amounting to procedural unfairness. The judge's comments and conduct, taken together, would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias, requiring recusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • First Order (unless order, attendance order, indemnity costs order) set aside
  • Judge's refusal to recuse himself overturned; recusal required