Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors

Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors

There was no real possibility of bias in the judge's conduct regarding the receipt and handling of Mr Risbey's letter or in the management of the hearing. The judge acted transparently, afforded the applicant opportunity to respond, and no fair minded and informed observer would conclude bias. The recusal application is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: 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 / Ruling on Recusal Application Prior to Judgment on Appeal and Application to Set Aside Orders
Outcome
Application for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Recusal, Apparent Bias, Case Management, Adjournment, Evidence Admissibility
Civil Procedure Judicial Recusal Apparent Bias Case Management Adjournment Evidence Admissibility

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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 / Ruling on Recusal Application Prior to Judgment on Appeal and Application to Set Aside Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse himself due to alleged apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether the conduct regarding receipt and handling of a party's letter creates real possibility of bias

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real possibility of bias in the judge's conduct regarding the receipt and handling of Mr Risbey's letter or in the management of the hearing. The judge acted transparently, afforded the applicant opportunity to respond, and no fair minded and informed observer would conclude bias. The recusal application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal dismissed

Orders

  • Judge will proceed to deliver judgment on the Appeal and Application
  • Consideration of declaration of total lack of merit and costs deferred until further representations