Baker v Quantum Clothing Group & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 566 (05 June 2009)

Baker v Quantum Clothing Group & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 566 (05 June 2009)

There was no real possibility of bias arising from Sedley LJ's honorary presidency of the BTA, his personal experience of tinnitus, or the alleged indirect links between the BTA and the appellant's solicitors. The fair-minded and informed observer would not consider these circumstances as giving rise to apparent bias. The application for recusal was also made too late.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 566
Parties
Appellant: Stephanie Baker; 1st Respondent: Quantum Clothing Group; 2nd Respondent: Meridian Limited; 3rd Respondent: Pretty Polly Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Recusal
Outcome
Application for recusal refused
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Judicial Recusal, Fair Minded Observer Test
Civil Procedure Judicial Conduct Apparent Bias Judicial Recusal Fair Minded Observer Test

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Baker

Appellant

Quantum Clothing Group

1st Respondent

Meridian Limited

2nd Respondent

Pretty Polly Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Recusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the participation of Sedley LJ, as Hon. President of the British Tinnitus Association and a person with mild tinnitus, gave rise to apparent bias requiring recusal from the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no real possibility of bias arising from Sedley LJ's honorary presidency of the BTA, his personal experience of tinnitus, or the alleged indirect links between the BTA and the appellant's solicitors. The fair-minded and informed observer would not consider these circumstances as giving rise to apparent bias. The application for recusal was also made too late.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused

Orders

  • The applications for recusal are dismissed.