Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors [2016] EWHC 1448 (Ch) (17 June 2016)

Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors [2016] EWHC 1448 (Ch) (17 June 2016)

A fair minded and informed observer, apprised of all the circumstances, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias on the part of the judge. The judge acted transparently, disclosed the letter to all parties, gave the applicant opportunity to respond, and no conduct amounted to apparent bias.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1448 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Mohammad Reza Ghadami; First Defendant: Paul Bloomfield; Second Defendant: Philip James Saunders; Third Defendant: Paresh Kantilal Chohan; Fourth Defendant: Jan Bonde Nielsen; Fifth Defendant: Peter Bonde Nielson; Sixth Defendant: Saif Durbar; Seventh Defendant: Mark Rhodes; Eighth Defendant: Mahendra Narottam Bakhda; Ninth Defendant: David John Risbey; Tenth Defendant: Kennth John Fincken; Eleventh Defendant: Larios Properties Ltd; Twelfth Defendant: Festio Investments Ltd; Thirteenth Defendant: Belgrave Capital Ltd; Fourteenth Defendant: Brazxa Investments International Corporation; Fifteenth Defendant: Beacon Industries Corporation; Sixteenth Defendant: Lynn Properties Limited; Seventeenth Defendant: Vitala Investment Holding Limited; Eighteenth Defendant: Merix International Ventures Limited; Nineteenth Defendant: 41 USG INC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Application for Recusal / Judgment on Application for Recusal of Judge Prior to Appeal and Application Hearing
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Apparent Bias, Case Management, Litigant in Person, Evidence Handling
Civil Procedure Judicial Recusal Apparent Bias Case Management Litigant in Person Evidence Handling

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mohammad Reza Ghadami

Claimant

Paul Bloomfield

First Defendant

Philip James Saunders

Second Defendant

Paresh Kantilal Chohan

Third Defendant

Jan Bonde Nielsen

Fourth Defendant

Peter Bonde Nielson

Fifth Defendant

Saif Durbar

Sixth Defendant

Mark Rhodes

Seventh Defendant

Mahendra Narottam Bakhda

Eighth Defendant

David John Risbey

Ninth Defendant

Kennth John Fincken

Tenth Defendant

Larios Properties Ltd

Eleventh Defendant

Festio Investments Ltd

Twelfth Defendant

Belgrave Capital Ltd

Thirteenth Defendant

Brazxa Investments International Corporation

Fourteenth Defendant

Beacon Industries Corporation

Fifteenth Defendant

Lynn Properties Limited

Sixteenth Defendant

Vitala Investment Holding Limited

Seventeenth Defendant

Merix International Ventures Limited

Eighteenth Defendant

41 USG INC

Nineteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Application for Recusal / Judgment on Application for Recusal of Judge Prior to Appeal and Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself for apparent bias in handling correspondence and evidence from a party
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the judge gave rise to a real possibility of bias in the eyes of a fair minded and informed observer

Ratio Decidendi

A fair minded and informed observer, apprised of all the circumstances, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias on the part of the judge. The judge acted transparently, disclosed the letter to all parties, gave the applicant opportunity to respond, and no conduct amounted to apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed

Orders

  • The judge will proceed to deliver judgment on the appeal and the application.
  • Consideration of whether the recusal application was totally without merit and costs to be addressed at the next hearing.