Dorman & Ors v Clinton Devon Farms Partnership

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the case management orders (unless order, attendance order, indemnity costs order) were justified
  2. 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