Jersey Judgment

Mayo v Cantrade [1997] JLR 304 (01 December 1997)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the mere fact that the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff hears a case involving the States or other Government body does not, by itself, constitute apparent bias or a conflict of interest between judicial and legislative/executive functions.

Court disposition

application for recusation dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

Mayo

Applicant

Cantrade

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Recusation / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff may hear a case in which the States or other Government body is interested and whether this constitutes a conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff should be recused from hearing the case due to apparent bias arising from the States or other Government body being interested in the matter, suggesting a conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions.
Respondent
The respondent argued that there is not necessarily a conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions when the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff hears such a case, and that apparent bias does not automatically arise in these circumstances.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    [1997] JLR 304

    A Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff may hear a case in which the States or other Government body is interested; this does not necessarily create a conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions or apparent bias.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the mere fact that the Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff hears a case involving the States or other Government body does not, by itself, constitute apparent bias or a conflict of interest between judicial and legislative/executive functions.

Court disposition

application for recusation dismissed

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[1997] JLR 304

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Mayo v Cantrade [1997] JLR 304 (01 December 1997) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1997/JLR970304.html Cite as: [1997] JLR 304 [ New search ] [ Help ] Mayo v Cantrade 1997 JLR 304 (01 December 1997) Courts - recusation - apparent bias - Bailiff or Deputy Bailiff may hear case in which States or other Government body interested-not necessarily conflict between judicial and legislative/executive functions The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1997 JLR 304 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1997/JLR970304.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.