Dorman & Ors v Clinton Devon Farms Partnership
The judge's orders were based on factual errors regarding responsibility for delay and were unjustified; the judge's conduct and comments, taken together, would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias, warranting recusal.
- Parties
- Claimant: James Dorman; Claimant: Caroline Dorman; Claimant: Kirsty Clode; Claimant: Andrew Turton; Defendant/appellant: Clinton Devon Farms Partnership
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 November 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed; orders set aside; judge recused.
- Legal Topics
- Case Management, Recusal, Apparent Bias, Costs Orders, Unless Orders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Dorman
Claimant
Caroline Dorman
Claimant
Kirsty Clode
Claimant
Andrew Turton
Claimant
Clinton Devon Farms Partnership
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the case management orders (unless order, attendance order, indemnity costs order) were justified
- 2 Whether the judge's conduct and comments gave rise to apparent bias warranting recusal
Ratio Decidendi
The judge's orders were based on factual errors regarding responsibility for delay and were unjustified; the judge's conduct and comments, taken together, would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias, warranting recusal.
Court Disposition
Appeals allowed; orders set aside; judge recused.
Orders
- Material parts of the First Order set aside
- Order for recusal of the judge as sought in the Appellant’s Notice
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