Mengiste & Anor v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1003 (14 August 2013)

Mengiste & Anor v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1003 (14 August 2013)

This was an exceptional case where the judge's criticisms of the solicitors were unnecessary, expressed in absolute terms, and repeated, creating an appearance of bias. Applying the test in Porter v Magill, the judge should have recused himself from hearing the wasted costs application. However, the requirements for a Stage 1 wasted costs order were met on the admitted breaches of CPR 35, and the appeal against the making of a Stage 1 order was dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1003
Parties
Claimant: Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste; Claimant: Addis Trading Share Company; Defendant/respondent to Appeal/applicant: Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray; Defendant/respondent to Appeal/applicant: Addis Pharmaceutical Factory Place; Defendant/respondent to Appeal/applicant: Mesfin Industrial Engineering PLC; Appellant/respondent to Application: Rylatt Chubb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Recusal appeal allowed; Stage 1 wasted costs order set aside; application to bar further Stage 1 wasted costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Wasted Costs Orders, Apparent Bias, Expert Evidence, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Judicial Recusal Wasted Costs Orders Apparent Bias Expert Evidence Civil Procedure Rules

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste

Claimant

Addis Trading Share Company

Claimant

Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray

Defendant/respondent to Appeal/applicant

Addis Pharmaceutical Factory Place

Defendant/respondent to Appeal/applicant

Mesfin Industrial Engineering PLC

Defendant/respondent to Appeal/applicant

Rylatt Chubb

Appellant/respondent to Application

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge should have recused himself from hearing a wasted costs application due to apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether the Stage 1 wasted costs order against the appellant solicitors was properly made

Ratio Decidendi

This was an exceptional case where the judge's criticisms of the solicitors were unnecessary, expressed in absolute terms, and repeated, creating an appearance of bias. Applying the test in Porter v Magill, the judge should have recused himself from hearing the wasted costs application. However, the requirements for a Stage 1 wasted costs order were met on the admitted breaches of CPR 35, and the appeal against the making of a Stage 1 order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Recusal appeal allowed; Stage 1 wasted costs order set aside; application to bar further Stage 1 wasted costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • The judge's refusal to recuse himself is set aside.
  • The Stage 1 wasted costs order is set aside.