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

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

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.

Citation
[1997] JLR 304
Parties
Applicant: Mayo; Respondent: Cantrade
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Recusation / Judgment
Outcome
application for recusation dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Apparent Bias, Judicial Impartiality
Judicial Process Recusal Apparent Bias Judicial Impartiality

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayo

Applicant

Cantrade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recusation / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 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

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