UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 949 (11 July 2022)

UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 949 (11 July 2022)

The judge's handling of the first Part 52.30 application was affected by apparent bias due to a combination of procedural unfairness, including refusal to allow full submissions, refusal to permit or extend time for applications, and imposition of an unreasonably short time limit. The judge ought to have recused himself as his own fairness was under direct challenge. Both the first Part 52.30 order and the second PTA decision must be set aside. The tests for re-opening under CPR Part 52.30 are satisfied, and the integrity of the process was critically undermined.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 949
Parties
Claimant/respondent: UCP PLC; Defendant/applicant: Nectrus Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Application to Set Aside/refuse Permission to Appeal; Application to Re Open Refusal of Permission to Appeal Under CPR Part 52.30
Outcome
Appeal allowed; first Part 52.30 order and second PTA decision set aside; permission to appeal on ground 2 confirmed for Nectrus.
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judges, Apparent Bias, Permission to Appeal, Reflective Loss, CPR Part 52.30, Setting Aside Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Recusal of Judges Apparent Bias Permission to Appeal Reflective Loss CPR Part 52.30 Setting Aside 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UCP PLC

Claimant/respondent

Nectrus Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Application to Set Aside/refuse Permission to Appeal; Application to Re Open Refusal of Permission to Appeal Under CPR Part 52.30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's handling of the first Part 52.30 application was affected by apparent bias
  2. 2 Whether the judge ought to have recused himself from making the first Part 52.30 decision
  3. 3 Whether the judge's first Part 52.30 order and second PTA decision should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's handling of the first Part 52.30 application was affected by apparent bias due to a combination of procedural unfairness, including refusal to allow full submissions, refusal to permit or extend time for applications, and imposition of an unreasonably short time limit. The judge ought to have recused himself as his own fairness was under direct challenge. Both the first Part 52.30 order and the second PTA decision must be set aside. The tests for re-opening under CPR Part 52.30 are satisfied, and the integrity of the process was critically undermined.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; first Part 52.30 order and second PTA decision set aside; permission to appeal on ground 2 confirmed for Nectrus.

Orders

  • First Part 52.30 order set aside
  • Second PTA decision set aside