Cruddas v Calvert & Ors

Cruddas v Calvert & Ors

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias in the circumstances. The judge had not pre-judged the facts to be tried, the issues had changed following the Court of Appeal's decision, and the Court of Appeal did not direct that a different judge should hear the trial. The application for recusal was refused.

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
Civil Defamation (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application for Recusal and Directions for Trial
Outcome
Application for recusal refused; directions for trial given.
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Justification Defence, Case Management
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Recusal of Judge Libel Malicious Falsehood Justification Defence Case Management

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Cruddas

Claimant

Jonathan Calvert

Defendant

Heidi Blake

Defendant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel and Malicious Falsehood) / Interlocutory Application for Recusal and Directions for Trial

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

Ratio Decidendi

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias in the circumstances. The judge had not pre-judged the facts to be tried, the issues had changed following the Court of Appeal's decision, and the Court of Appeal did not direct that a different judge should hear the trial. The application for recusal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused; directions for trial given.

Orders

  • The trial judge (Mr Justice Tugendhat) declines to recuse himself.
  • The trial is listed to commence on Tuesday 2 July at 2pm before Mr Justice Tugendhat.