High Court judge refuses an interlocutory application to recuse himself due the defendants’ alleged apprehension that he had pre-judged the case due to his ruling in a separate case, on the grounds that the defendants’ apprehension is not one which an objective observer who is not unduly sensitive and is in possession of all the relevant facts could have in the circumstances.
Application to have the judge recuse himself – defendants seeking various reliefs including a declaration that the deeds appointing the plaintiff as a receiver are invalid – another High Court Judge already refused the defendants’ application to recuse himself - same Notice of Motion used for this application - recusal application - right of appeal - grounds for recusal alleged - plaintiff has an “unfair and decisive” advantage due to the determination by the Court in a separate and distinct case – apprehension – alleged to have a “strong apprehension” that both this Court and another High Court Judge who refused the recusal application have pre-judged the case - objective standard of reasonable apprehension about whether there could be a fair and impartial hearing – argued that the Court’s judgment gave little prospect of a successful challenge to a resolution of ACC giving retrospective effect to an appointment of a receiver - deprived of an impartial hearing - informed Person test - whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would think that regardless of the Judge’s declaration pursuant to Art. 34.6.1 of the Constitution to administer justice without fear or favour, he could provide an impartial hearing free of pre-judgment, hostility or prejudice to the defendants or their arguments - did not allege bias - not alleged nor is it a fact that the judge has any actual or potential pecuniary interest involving the parties directly or indirectly - novel application - lack of understanding of the common law system for administering justice - task of lawyers to consider and differentiate facts for the application of legal principles – precedent - principles to be applied – Court has a duty to determine each case on its own merits without fear or favour - Litigants should not influence the composition of the Court to determine their disputes - the selection of Judges by litigants could bring the administration of justice into disrepute - not an apprehension which an objective observer who is not unduly sensitive and is in possession of all the relevant facts could have in the circumstances.