Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWCA Civ 1173 (23 July 2002)
There was no arguable basis for judicial bias as prior professional contact and club support did not create a real possibility of bias; the refusal to mediate was justified given the hopelessness of the claim and the applicant's conduct; the consent order could not be set aside absent fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation.
- Citation
- [2002] EWCA Civ 1173
- Parties
- Claimant/applicant: Robert Alfred Hurst; Defendant/respondent: Ian Leeming QC
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 July 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Costs, Judicial Bias, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Consent Orders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Alfred Hurst
Claimant/applicant
Ian Leeming QC
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge should have recused himself for alleged bias
- 2 Whether the refusal to mediate should affect the costs order
- 3 Whether the consent order could be set aside
Ratio Decidendi
There was no arguable basis for judicial bias as prior professional contact and club support did not create a real possibility of bias; the refusal to mediate was justified given the hopelessness of the claim and the applicant's conduct; the consent order could not be set aside absent fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment