Abbotsley Limited & Anor v Pheasantland Limited & Ors
The recusal application was dismissed as totally without merit; delays and procedural errors by the court do not amount to apparent bias. The transfer application was refused as the case has no sufficient connection to Central London and transfer would cause further delay. The adjournment was granted due to court...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: Abbotsley Limited; Claimant: Vivien Inez Saunders; Defendant: Pheasantland Limited; Defendant: Keith Malcolm Blackall; Defendant: Christina Blackall; Defendant: John Alan Gearing; Defendant: Virginia Lynn Melesi; Defendant: Stephen John Newland; Defendant: Laurence Antony Honeywill; Defendant: Darren Honeywill; Defendant: Alan James Steele; Defendant: Valerie Anne Holliman; Defendant: Joy Carroll Seiller; Defendant: Neil Raymond Warren (Deceased); Defendant: Jeremy Charles Ian Brindley; Defendant: A person known as Colm
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 April 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management
- Outcome
- Recusal application dismissed; transfer application refused; adjournment granted.
- Legal Topics
- Recusal, Adjournment, Transfer of Proceedings, Costs Budgeting, Case Management
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abbotsley Limited
Claimant
Vivien Inez Saunders
Claimant
Pheasantland Limited
Defendant
Keith Malcolm Blackall
Defendant
Christina Blackall
Defendant
John Alan Gearing
Defendant
Virginia Lynn Melesi
Defendant
Stephen John Newland
Defendant
Laurence Antony Honeywill
Defendant
Darren Honeywill
Defendant
Alan James Steele
Defendant
Valerie Anne Holliman
Defendant
Joy Carroll Seiller
Defendant
Neil Raymond Warren (Deceased)
Defendant
Jeremy Charles Ian Brindley
Defendant
A person known as Colm
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications and Case Management
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge should recuse herself for apparent bias
- 2 Whether the proceedings should be transferred to another court
- 3 Whether the trial should be adjourned
Ratio Decidendi
The recusal application was dismissed as totally without merit; delays and procedural errors by the court do not amount to apparent bias. The transfer application was refused as the case has no sufficient connection to Central London and transfer would cause further delay. The adjournment was granted due to court error in listing and failure to hold a CCMC, which jeopardized a fair trial.
Court Disposition
Recusal application dismissed; transfer application refused; adjournment granted.
Orders
- Trial vacated from 27 February 2025 to 19 March 2025; relisted for 29 April 2025 to 23 May 2025, with possible non-sitting days 12-15 May 2025.
- Trial of issues involving thirteenth defendant listed for 27 and 28 May 2025.
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