Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2013] EWHC 1791 (QB) (26 June 2013)

Cruddas v Calvert & Ors [2013] EWHC 1791 (QB) (26 June 2013)

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there is a real possibility of bias in the judge continuing to hear the case, as the issues have changed, no findings of fact have been made, and the Court of Appeal did not direct a different judge; therefore, the application for recusal is refused.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1791
Parties
Claimant: Peter Cruddas; Defendant: Jonathan Calvert; Defendant: Heidi Blake; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Pre Trial; Application for Recusal and Directions for Trial After Partial Appeal
Outcome
Application for recusal refused; trial directions given.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Judicial Recusal, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Justification Defence, Case Management
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Judicial Recusal Meaning of Defamatory Words Justification Defence +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Cruddas

Claimant

Jonathan Calvert

Defendant

Heidi Blake

Defendant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood Claim / Pre Trial; Application for Recusal and Directions for Trial After Partial Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge should recuse himself for apparent bias after being partially reversed on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the trial should be relisted and when it should commence

Ratio Decidendi

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there is a real possibility of bias in the judge continuing to hear the case, as the issues have changed, no findings of fact have been made, and the Court of Appeal did not direct a different judge; therefore, the application for recusal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused; trial directions given.

Orders

  • Judge declines to recuse himself.
  • Trial to commence on 2 July at 2pm before Mr Justice Tugendhat.