Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Allegations of judicial bias not established in attempt to set aside order for possession of property
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court has refused to set aside a 2020 order for possession of property, affirming the original decision despite the defendants' claims of judicial bias and irregularity. The defendants, who represented themselves, argued that the judgment was compromised due to an alleged undisclosed financial relationship between the presiding judge and the plaintiff's law firm. However, the court found no evidence of bias or a connection between the judge and the case, noting that the Supreme Court had previously refused leave to appeal.
High Court, possession order, judicial bias, set-aside application, Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC, co-plaintiff, Supreme Court, leave to appeal, financial relationship, law firm, defendants' self-representation, legal charge, transfer of interest, objective bystander test, inherent jurisdiction, finality principle, constitutional rights.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
